Dual Wielding

[Benchimus]

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. 

Quoted for truth and justice. You have been speaking nothing but good plain sense throughout this entire thread. Dual wield: Unnecessary.  Plasma rifle stun making it more than just a less useful AR skin: Absolutely true.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

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.

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).

[Captain Scibra]

Dual weiding is such a sensitive feature. The main issue is that akimbo secondary can have a tendency to overshadow a lot of the normal primaries a tad too much. All that needs to be done is make sure net effeftivity is capped at 50% performance boost by taking away from accuracy and melee/reload speed, and incressed recoil and all that stuff. Also, unlike in Halo 2, do not increase maximum ammo storage with each additional weapon of the same type. (You could bug it to wield 3 smgs or magnums for a ton of ammo, the third in your reserve weapon slot, and that bug is likely to return.) As much as I want it back it needs to be done cleanly.

[SilentGamer64]

 

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).

 

I'm saying that we shouldn't be repeating what Halo 4 did, which is removing features that many people enjoyed. Your opinion is to keep something out that other people (including myself) enjoyed.

 

The same could be said for features like sprint or AA's. Sure they're cool and fun, but are they good for Halo? Debatable. Should they be trashed? Absolutely not. There are plenty of ways to improve AA's and sprint, and the same can be done for duel wielding as well.

 

 

 

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."

 

Its not contradicting at all. The reason I can beat AR users in close range with an SMG is because I play to its strengths. If the AR user is competent enough, they will keep their distance to take advantage of my SMG's weakness at mid range and beat me out. The AR can beat the SMG at mid-ranges, and the SMG can beat the AR at close ranges. They're balanced to fill their intended niches.

 

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).

 

That's the problem with loadouts. They require "filler" weapons to keep the concept of loadouts relevant. And those "filler" weapons basically have to be nearly identical in purpose. Halo 4 has 4 precision rifles, 3 automatics, and 3 pistols. Except two of the three pistols are harmful to gameplay in some way, and the two long range precision rifles encourage less map movement and campy gameplay. That leaves us with only 6 weapons to choose from.

 

The truth is, Halo was never built with loadouts in mind. In the past, Halo's weapons were allowed to be unique because they all spawned on the map. But if Halo is forced to be built around loadouts, none of the weapons offered on spawn are going to be unique enough from one another due to the need for a sense of balance at spawn.

 

And it doesn't matter if there's duel wielding or not when you throw the SMG or PR in as secondaries, because the loadout system would require them to have similar if not the same killtimes in order to be properly balanced. You know that there's very little difference between the AR and SR in loadouts, right? It would be the same case for the SMG and PR in the secondaries slot.

 

This is why we're better off going with the tried and true BR/AR starts, so that the rest of the weapon sandbox can be placed on the map and have some breathing room to become more unique. The SR wouldn't have to be a blue clone of the AR, the DMR/LR could provide a slight range advantage against the BR, vehicle play would be restored with stickies on the map, and the PP and boltshot's semi-auto fire modes could be buffed to be viable enough to kill an opponent before having to reload/recharge.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

I'm saying that we shouldn't be repeating what Halo 4 did, which is removing features that many people enjoyed. Your opinion is to keep something out that other people (including myself) enjoyed.

 

The same could be said for features like sprint or AA's. Sure they're cool and fun, but are they good for Halo? Debatable. Should they be trashed? Absolutely not. There are plenty of ways to improve AA's and sprint, and the same can be done for duel wielding as well.

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...

 

Its not contradicting at all. The reason I can beat AR users in close range with an SMG is because I play to its strengths. If the AR user is competent enough, they will keep their distance to take advantage of my SMG's weakness at mid range and beat me out. The AR can beat the SMG at mid-ranges, and the SMG can beat the AR at close ranges. They're balanced to fill their intended niches.

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).

 

That's the problem with loadouts. They require "filler" weapons to keep the concept of loadouts relevant. And those "filler" weapons basically have to be nearly identical in purpose. Halo 4 has 4 precision rifles, 3 automatics, and 3 pistols. Except two of the three pistols are harmful to gameplay in some way, and the two long range precision rifles encourage less map movement and campy gameplay. That leaves us with only 6 weapons to choose from.

 

The truth is, Halo was never built with loadouts in mind. In the past, Halo's weapons were allowed to be unique because they all spawned on the map. But if Halo is forced to be built around loadouts, none of the weapons offered on spawn are going to be unique enough from one another due to the need for a sense of balance at spawn.

 

And it doesn't matter if there's duel wielding or not when you throw the SMG or PR in as secondaries, because the loadout system would require them to have similar if not the same killtimes in order to be properly balanced. You know that there's very little difference between the AR and SR in loadouts, right? It would be the same case for the SMG and PR in the secondaries slot.

 

This is why we're better off going with the tried and true BR/AR starts, so that the rest of the weapon sandbox can be placed on the map and have some breathing room to become more unique. The SR wouldn't have to be a blue clone of the AR, the DMR/LR could provide a slight range advantage against the BR, vehicle play would be restored with stickies on the map, and the PP and boltshot's semi-auto fire modes could be buffed to be viable enough to kill an opponent before having to reload/recharge.

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.

[SilentGamer64]

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...

 

And as I've already said, this can be changed. I personally dislike sprint and AA's, but I'm not about to push for them to be scrapped without considering those who do like them. I dislike them for the reasons you stated above, they cause problems with Halo's gameplay. I've seen plenty of people suggest limiting the amount of times AA's are used, and placing them on the map as equiptment. I've also seen ideas for fixing sprint, but if the mechanic itself cant be kept, at least we could always increase movement speed or place the new speed boost powerup on the map somewhere.

 

The same goes for duel wielding. Balancing can be done to make duel wields do double the damage as one. A good example would be the pistol. Single wielded, the pistol could be a 5sk. Make it duel wielded, and it becomes a 3sk (2 shots from one pistol and 3 from the other), just like CE's pistol. Of course, you would have to slow down the ROF, but it wouldn't be as ridiculously slow as Halo 3's pistol. It could instead match the CE pistol's ROF, and then you have a decent single wield weapon that becomes even more powerful duel wielded.

 

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.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. Its all has to do with the hierarchy of the weapons sandbox.

Shotgun: CQC

SMG: CQC-close

AR: close-mid

BR: mid-long

Sniper: long

 

Each weapon covers their designated niche. And what makes you think the AR is left without a niche? I just listed its niche above. It can take advantage of the shotgun and SMG's inability to reach mid ranges, and the BR and sniper's inability to be effective in close ranges.

 

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).

 

First of all, its never usually a good idea to run around in Halo without a headshot capable weapon. Secondly, I am assuming you originally spawned with a precision weapon along with your AR, since choosing to spawn with an AR and SMG, or even swapping said precision weapon for an SMG on the map, severely limits your options.

 

In the event that you come across someone duel wielding SMG's, it would have been best if you had pulled out your precision weapon (that you seemed to have conveniently misplaced), meleed once, and then cleaned them up with the precision. . Because they sacrificed a quicker melee for duel wielding, they would likely keep firing, which is still slower than the quick melee-headshot combo. In hindsight, if you were unsure wether or not someone was waiting for you on the other side, you should have fragged around the corner first before proceeding.

 

In the end, you are punished for running in without fragging first, as well as running in with two full autos rather than one full auto and a precision to back you up. As for why you traded your precision weapon for an SMG, I don't know. But either way, it isn't duel wielding's fault.

 

Of course it will make gameplay dull for him, but that's his choice. Gameplay is still engaging for you because you chose not to duel wield, and therefore still have the ability to frag and melee. You already know how to deal with someone who's shooting at you, so you should put those advantages you chose to keep to good use.

 

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.

 

I'm not saying change the CC, but if the BR/CC and the AR/SR are the only weapons that function nearly identically, theres really no point to loadouts. Perhaps the option to just choose between the BR/CC as a primary and the AR/SR as a secondary would be ok, but then what would happen with AA's? Pistols/sidearms? If those were placed on the map in a balanced way, I would be fine with that. Otherwise, 343i might as well bring back (balanced) Elites to MM, force spawn them with CC/SR, and then force spawn Spartans with BR/AR.

 

If there's nothing wrong with differentiating the AR/SR between shield vs health damage, then why are you against that same differentiation between the SMG/PR? Or did you change your opinion in support of the distinction between ballistic vs plasma weapons being health vs shield damage? Either way, I would be fine with the AR/SR functioning that way.

 

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.

 

CE's was the Pistol/AR, and Halo 2's was the BR/SMG. The combo was always there, even if the weapons were slightly different.

 

So then put the pistol on the map. Maybe buff it a bit too. The only reason its still around is for CE nostalgia. The real CE pistol turned into the BR in Halo 2, and lived on through 3, and 4. Its still here, but its a rifle now.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

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.

[SilentGamer64]

 

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 bes idea for an Arena shooter)

 

Of course, we could revert completely back to one use equipment, but then AA's like hologram and thruster would be nearly useless. Who would want to pick up something that only gives them one hologram, or one thruster dodge? Abilities like these could have 4-5 uses before running out. See? Instead of scrapping AA's we can just fix them to be better balanced.

 

And like I said earlier, if the main reason people want sprint is for faster gameplay, just increase the movement speed and put the speed boost powerup on the map.

 

Honestly, loadouts are the ultimate offender of making the noob combo easily accessible to players. With duel wielding, you would still have to find the PP on the map, just like you did in CE, except, as said before, you are trading grenades and melee for it to be wielded with a pistol at the same time. And despite being called the "noob combo" it still arguably takes more effort to execute than say, running up to a player with the PP, and charge shot-meleeing them, which has been present in every single title since CE.

 

The golden triangle of guns, grenades, and melee? As stated before, duel wielding sacrifices grenades and melee for increased firepower in the guns category. And I would even go as far as saying that there are flaws with the golden triangle don't apply all the time, like when you are either out of grenades, out of range to melee someone, or out of ammo. Should running out of grenades be considered detrimental to the golden triangle? No, because the player can still work with what they've got, and seek out more grenades later on.

 

"...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 in my opinion)."

 

Fixed. An Arena shooter is about equal starts, and fighting for control of weapons/vehicles/positions on the map. These advantages are placed on the map in such a way that encourages map movement. A players success is based on their own individual playstyle and skill. No where in the definition of "Arena shooter" is there a line that reads "Arena shooters do not let players duel wield or akimbo weapons". After you spawn in, no matter you do, even if you decide to duel wield, its fair game.

 

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.

 

If duel wielding is to blame for the PR loosing its CE traits, then it would have only been logical for it to regain them in Reach, where duel wielding was removed to bring back the "CE feel" to Halo. Except it didn't, because it wasn't just duel wielding that caused the PR to be changed, it was the expanding sandbox, and the balance between each weapon within the sandbox. It was fine in CE because people were running around with a 3sk pistol. But when we got the 4sk BR in Halo 2, all the other existing weapons in the sandbox had to be toned down to balance with it.

 

 

 

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?

 

CQC, as in, the niche where weapons like the shotgun, sword, hammer, and scattershot excel in. The difference between CQC and close range, is that CQC is basically the niche where a melee is most effective. Wereas close range is just out of melee range, thus the word "range" in close range.

 

To better explain why I placed the SMG in CQC-close, is because that is where it is most effective. Of course, an SMG cant beat a Shotgun or sword in CQC, but it can beat other weapons like the AR and BR in CQC. The AR cant touch the SMG's niche of CQC or close range, but it can beat the SMG at mid range, as well as the BR in close range. Likewise, the BR is terrible against the SMG and AR at close range, but can beat them both out at mid range. And I'm sure you already know what the sniper's niche is. So yes, the AR has a niche, but its effectiveness depends on how the player uses it.

 

 

 

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.

 

I suppose it isn't entirely pointless, but it makes COD and BF look way more appealing, with all the "options" they have. As I said before, if the only choices are the BR/CC, and the AR/SR, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that other people may see this as "limiting their options". In other words, it would be ideal for balancing Halo, but will it be well received?

 

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?

 

Then you are still at fault. If you didn't want to duel wield in the first place, then right from the start you shouldn't have picked up the SMG. If you chose to use the AR to avoid duel wielding, but you know SMG's are still in play on the map, then you should have kept to mid range with your AR where it will excel against potential SMG threats the most.

 

Because the duel wielder sacrificed melee, yes, a quick melee-headshot combo would be fair game. In the end you aren't punished for duel wielding, you're punished for not playing to your AR's strength at the most effective range against the SMG.

 

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.

 

Assuming you as well as your fallen enemy picked up a duel wieldable weapon from the map. You are assuming a set up like Halo 2 with SMG starts. As I said above, spawning with the BR/CC primary and AR/SR secondary is fine, but that doesn't mean you should spawn with a duel wieldable weapons like the SMG or PR. As for the pistol, I said in a previous post that it shouldn't be spawned with anymore and just be placed on the map.

 

As for the fallen player being at a disadvantage upon respawning, when has that ever been any different in Halo? In CE if I die with rockets and the enemy picks them up, am I at a disadvantage upon spawning? You bet. Its part of the game, where the better player survives while the lesser player respawns. If you die and give the enemy the advantage, that's your own fault.

[Maximum Clutch]

Dual wielding an smg and a plasma rifle was the best combo in halo 3. You could kill in about 0.2 seconds. It was awesome.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Of course, we could revert completely back to one use equipment, but then AA's like hologram and thruster would be nearly useless. Who would want to pick up something that only gives them one hologram, or one thruster dodge? Abilities like these could have 4-5 uses before running out. See? Instead of scrapping AA's we can just fix them to be better balanced.

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.

Honestly, loadouts are the ultimate offender of making the noob combo easily accessible to players. With duel wielding, you would still have to find the PP on the map, just like you did in CE, except, as said before, you are trading grenades and melee for it to be wielded with a pistol at the same time. And despite being called the "noob combo" it still arguably takes more effort to execute than say, running up to a player with the PP, and charge shot-meleeing them, which has been present in every single title since CE.

True, but the noob combo can be executed at longer-than-melee (CQC) range. That is a big factor.

The golden triangle of guns, grenades, and melee? As stated before, duel wielding sacrifices grenades and melee for increased firepower in the guns category. And I would even go as far as saying that there are flaws with the golden triangle don't apply all the time, like when you are either out of grenades, out of range to melee someone, or out of ammo. Should running out of grenades be considered detrimental to the golden triangle? No, because the player can still work with what they've got, and seek out more grenades later on.

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.

No where in the definition of "Arena shooter" is there a line that reads "Arena shooters do not let players duel wield or akimbo weapons". After you spawn in, no matter you do, even if you decide to duel wield, its fair game.

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.

To better explain why I placed the SMG in CQC-close, is because that is where it is most effective. Of course, an SMG cant beat a Shotgun or sword in CQC, but it can beat other weapons like the AR and BR in CQC. The AR cant touch the SMG's niche of CQC or close range, but it can beat the SMG at mid range, as well as the BR in close range. Likewise, the BR is terrible against the SMG and AR at close range, but can beat them both out at mid range. And I'm sure you already know what the sniper's niche is. So yes, the AR has a niche, but its effectiveness depends on how the player uses it.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

I suppose it isn't entirely pointless, but it makes COD and BF look way more appealing, with all the "options" they have. As I said before, if the only choices are the BR/CC, and the AR/SR, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that other people may see this as "limiting their options". In other words, it would be ideal for balancing Halo, but will it be well received?

"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.

Then you are still at fault. If you didn't want to duel wield in the first place, then right from the start you shouldn't have picked up the SMG.

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?

[SilentGamer64]

 

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.

 

Yeah, vehicles only really apply to BTB and 6v6 anyways, the golden triangle is more for the 4v4 gameplay. And there really is no "proper" way to use the triangle, players can do what they want, and whatever the consequences are will be a direct result of their actions.

 

 

 

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?

 

Obviously not, and I'm assuming those games allow you to throw grenades and melee too. But in Halo, duel wielding has its tradeoffs for the additional weapon.

 

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.

 

No, because you are essentially spawning with "one gun" that can be fired with two triggers. COD did akimbo starting with MW2 as well (in fact, as of Ghosts, COD still does akimbo). Its interesting to note that COD  adopted a duel wield system with MW2 (2009) around the same time Halo dropped it with ODST (2009) and later Reach (2010). While akimbo in COD makes you feel like a bad*ss, its only tradeoff is ADS, which Halo doesn't even have. And having something  like this in Halo would be worse, because all the weapon combos that were possible with duel wielding before would be limited to only matching weapons.

 

 

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:

1. 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.

 

Its window is no smaller than it was in CE. In fact it was probably even smaller in CE with weapons like the 3sk pistol, headshot/stun PR, longest ranged shotgun in the history of Halo, and the sniper and rockets.

 

1. In Halo's 2 and 3, the SMG's reticule was bigger, indicating that the BR (and AR in Halo 3) had the superior range. Larger reticule = more spread, which is why the shotgun's reticule is a giant circle, and the sniper's is a tiny circle. Recoil was also used in 2 and 3 for balance. It wasn't at all for realism, because by that logic, holding a detatched turret or a SAW would also produce recoil. The SMG wouldn't have bloom, so its effectiveness would solely rely on what range you use it in (CQC-close), while using it at mid range would be its cut off. As for the AR, it currently takes 13 shots to kill with it in Halo 4. It also received some sort of spread or bloom reduction to make it viable against the souped up precision rifles.

 

You also have to understand that the SMG would be an on map weapon if duel wielding were to return, so the fact that it is better than the AR at close range makes it kind of a lower-tiered power weapon in a way, like the needler.

2. 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.

 

No, because the SMG's effective range doesn't change, just the amount time it takes to kill someone at said range does. The AR would still be able to dominate duel SMG's at mid range like it would a single SMG. As for the Shotgun, it's a 1sk weapon at CQC, so what logic makes you think it will struggle against duel SMG's at its own niche? Melee wouldn't be affected. You would still be able to do your 2 shot beatdown with the BR, or close the gap with AR fire and finish them off with a melee. Backsmacking and assasinations would still function the same way, and ninja-ing would still be a viable tactic.

 

It is optional. As I've said before, if you don't want to duel wield, keep your AR/BR or pick up a different power weapon, and use those weapons to your advantage against those who are duel wielding. Shotguns beat out duels at CQC, AR's beat duels out at mid, and BR's beat out duels at mid-long range.

 

You make it sound like everyone is going to be running around with duel SMG's, but they're not. Look at Valhalla, there were only two SMG's, a spiker, and two PP's at each base. That means a total of 2 players could be duel wielding, and given the map's size, I would think that most people would just keep the AR/BR they spawned with.

 

"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 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.

 

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?

 

It is still viable by itself in its respective niche, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that two SMG's are better than one. With a single SMG, you will indeed be able to trump the AR and BR at CQC and close ranges, but going up against duel SMG's with one SMG? Do the math.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

 

It is still viable by itself in its respective niche, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that two SMG's are better than one. With a single SMG, you will indeed be able to trump the AR and BR at CQC and close ranges, but going up against duel SMG's with one SMG? Do the math.

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.

 

"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 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.

[SilentGamer64]

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.

 

A single SMG can trump an AR or BR on its own in its niche. Duel wielding increases the effectiveness of the SMG within its niche (more firepower, reduced killtime), but it doesn't extend it past that niche. A shotgun can still blast a duel wielder at CQC, and an AR and BR can still beat duels out at mid range.

 

The CQC weapons would be fine, since SMG's and AR's have the overlapping close range niche. If an SMG or AR user is in close range, all a shotgun/sword user has to do is close the gap for the kill.

 

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.

 

Perhaps individually SMG's aren't semi-power weapons, but duel wielding would definitely make them so. That's why you're sacrificing melee and grenades for it, because duel wielding is, in a way, a unique power weapon of its own. As for cluttering the sandbox, I strongly disagree. I am not about to see Halo's sandbox be reduced to 7 weapons like in CE, with only one or two new additions. That would be what I would consider a shallow sandbox.

 

 

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.

 

 

Based on the loadouts you just proposed above, you should also have either a BR or a CC handy. And of course, as I stated above, duel wielding could be considered a semi-power weapon in its own right, and unlike simply picking up a rocket launcher and going to town, the SMG/pistol wielder had to pick up both weapons off the map before gaining access to the combo.

[Benchimus]

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.

Because it wasnt necessary. Dual wieldable weapons in 2 and 3 were crap when you only had one. They made those weapons actually useful in Reach. The magnum and needler are perfect examples of this.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

 

As for cluttering the sandbox, I strongly disagree. I am not about to see Halo's sandbox be reduced to 7 weapons like in CE, with only one or two new additions. That would be what I would consider a shallow sandbox.

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.

[Ranger Intel]

Because it wasnt necessary. Dual wieldable weapons in 2 and 3 were crap when you only had one. They made those weapons actually useful in Reach. The magnum and needler are perfect examples of this.

 

There is no need for that language.

 

I see what you mean. They still could've made some weapons dual wield though. They don't all have to be. The Rocket Launcher and Energy Sword weren't.

[SilentGamer64]

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 in my opinion. That is what I would consider a shallow sandbox.

 

Wait, so does adding more weapons that apparently "bloat" the sandbox make the sandbox cluttered, or shallow? Those two words are pretty much opposite of each other, so pick one.

 

An example of cluttering the sandbox would be Halo 4's Loadouts. Why did they even bring back the DMR? Not only was it supposed to be destroyed with reach, but now we have a weapon (LR) that does its job even better with a 4sk. The suppressor doesn't really belong either, since both it and the SR have the same killtime, and the SR already fills the projectile/full-auto role. And the scattershot and boltshot aren't as useful in CQB compared to the shotgun, so they don't really belong either.

 

An example of a shallow sandbox would be CE's. Each weapon is unique, but at the same time, there's no variety, and with a selection of a whopping 9 weapons, your average gamer would find COD more attractive, what with the 20+ guns you get to choose from.

 

Duel wielding doesn't clutter the sandbox because duel wield weapons are unique enough from each other to not be considered "clones" unlike COD's selection of weapons (which for the most part are clones of each other mechanics-wise). At the same time, it doesn't make the sandbox shallow, for the obvious reason that there is a wide selection of weapon combos that can be done with duel wielding, and even when single wielded, each weapon has its own use, whether it be shields vs. health, projectile vs. hitscan, headshot bonus, etc.

 

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?

 

It wouldn't work, because the silenced SMG was a weapon built exclusively around campaign/co op gameplay, not PvP combat. It was also a temporary replacement of the BR. That's why the BR isn't in ODST, because the SSMG was made to fill in the same role as a medium range weapon (less spread, smaller reticle, x2 scope), with the only difference being that it's a full auto. Also assuming de-scoping (hopefully) returns, it wouldn't rival precision weapons, it would dominate them. And being constantly pelted with flinch isn't much better either.

 

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).

 

The only flaw in Halo 3's pistol was its slower ROF. Otherwise, it was a 5sk (hmm...just like the DMR), and was an effective close-mid range precision weapon. So saying it was only effective when duel wielded with another weapon is just your opinion. If its ROF were increased to match CE's pistol, it would have been both balanced and more effective in both single and duel wielding situations. And the pistol should already have the upper hand against the AR at mid range, as do most semi-auto precision weapons against full autos.

 

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?

 

The spiker is already unique in that it has the ability to both strip shields and damage health faster than a single SMG or PR. Its a utility/crossover between the two weapons, not a "counterpart" (by which you probably meant "clone"). And the spiker already had a slightly stronger melee than other weapons (http://www.halopedia.org/Spiker#Trivia). Giving brute weapons an even stronger melee than what they had before would also conflict with CQB combat, way more than duel wielding would.

 

 

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.

 

No, they wouldn't balance well with duel wielding, which is obviously your goal here. And again, you are trying to sidestep the fact that the player doesn't have to sacrifice grenades and melee to duel wield if they don't want to. 

 

 

Because it wasnt necessary. Dual wieldable weapons in 2 and 3 were crap when you only had one. They made those weapons actually useful in Reach. The magnum and needler are perfect examples of this.

 

The needler in Halo 3 and Reach are both 12sk, and in Reach its actually a 13sk against Elites, so IDK why you're saying its any better in reach when its not. As for the pistol, its a 5sk in both Halo 3 and Reach, with the only difference being reach's has a scope which is pretty much made redundant by the DMR, and random bloom with a spammy ROF that makes it arguably less skillful to use than Halo 3's pistol.

 

Also, Reach's AR was probably the worst AR in the entire Halo series. And that isn't even a duel wieldable weapon. The Plasma Repeater was just as bad, if not worse.

IDK about you, but I thought a good portion of Reach's sandbox was garbage.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

"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?

[SilentGamer64]

"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.

 

"Bloated", as in feeling bloated after eating a large meal, means that there appears to be too much of something.

 

"Shallow", as in a pond being shallow enough for people to walk through, means that there is little to nothing there.

 

COD's weapon selection is bloated, because there is a large quantity of weapons to choose from. However, the weapons themselves are shallow in that there is little to no difference in their effectiveness in the game. Each weapon will kill within 1 second.

 

Duel wielding may make the sandbox appear bloated in that there is a large amount of weapons in the sandbox, but when you look at the differences of each weapon, they are far from shallow, and are actually quite unique from each other.

 

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).

 

AR's can beat shotguns, swords, hammers, and all single wield SMG's at mid range, and the BR, Carbine, DMR, LR, sniper, beam rifle, and bi-rifle at close range. Lets also not forget that it can beat itself (other AR users) if it gets the drop on the enemy. IMO, after listing all the weapons it can beat based on where its used in its niche, its far from irrelevant or redundant.

 

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.

 

I agree, and by that logic, its ok to have the SMG, PR, and spiker have the same combat niche, just as it was for the AR and PR in CE, as well as the AR and SR in Halo 4.

 

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?

 

You just complained that duel wielding would make the AR redundant, and then immediately try to shoehorn the SSMG in? The AR would do better against a regular SMG compared to a SSMG with a x2 sight. And recoil could shoot your reticule up to the roof for all I care, but it will still be manageable enough to dominate the BR and Carbine, both of which suffer from spread when unscoped. The same goes for bloom (which would be a horrible mechanic for any kind of SMG).

 

You're trying to compare a close range (SMG) niche to a CQC (shotgun) niche. The Boltshot (charge shot), scattershot, and shotgun are all CQC weapons. Perhaps the boltshot's semi-auto mode makes it unique enough to still be considered relevant, but the scattershot is in the same dilemma with the shotgun as the DMR is with the LR. Other than bouncy projectiles and exploding confetti, the scattershot offers nothing unique that the shotgun cant already handle in CQC.

 

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.

 

Yes, and I had just said that giving it a slightly faster ROF wouldnt have made it looked down upon as much. Not to the point of Reach's or 4's where it could be unskillfully spammed for a lucky kill, but fast enough that it could remain a viable option at close-mid range without being too overpowering. Slapping a scope on the magnum is arguably for nastolgia's sake, because a precision weapon like the magnum can already dominate ranges longer than full auto weapons like the AR can without a scope, and the BR replaced the pistol as the main mid-range precision weapon long ago.

 

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.

 

So you want the spiker to have a 1hk melee? Sacrificing ROF and lower damage per shot is a terrible sacrifice for a 1hk melee. I would rather sacrifice grenades and melee to duel wield than to pick up that weapon. Perhaps it wouldnt damage CQC, but why pick up the melee damage modded spiker when I could just pick up a shotgun or sword? Why should I pick it up if I could just stick with an AR which does more damage per shot than it? Your proposed suggestions to change the spiker would make it an unfavorable choice compared to the other weapons in the sandbox that are already available.

 

Out of all the brute weapons, I could only seeing a 1hk melee working on the bruteshot, but the thing is already a grenade launcher, so giving it a melee boost might be overkill. At the same time, if you try to balance this out with a slower ROF and lower damage per shot, you might as well rename it the "potato 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?

 

PP's and PG's could be considered power weapons, and Halo 4 made the mistake of allowing players to spawn with them. As for the noob combo, deal with it. Its something unavoidable that has been there since the beginning of Halo, and as long as Halo continues to have the PP and a headshot weapon in the game, it's going nowhere.

 

Yes, it is fair to players who didnt want to duel wield, because duel wielding can be considered a power weapon.

 

And before you say "then it isnt really an option, you have to duel wield to keep the upper hand", think about this: There are two power weapons on a map, the shotgun, and a sniper. You know where both of them are, but as soon as you go for one, the enemy will pick up the other one. Which one do you go for?

 

Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages. Both weapons can be countered in some way by the weapons you spawned with. Will you get gunned down by the enemy's power weapon? If you dont play to their weakness, it's guaranteed. The same can be said for duel wielding. If someone is trying to kill you with duels, whip out a weapon with more range and back out of their effective niche.

 

"I came around a corner with an AR and duels killed me."

 

Pity. The same thing happened to me, except the enemy was holding a rocket launcher. But you dont hear me complaining. I accepted the fact that I done goofed.

 

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?

 

Because it makes combinations more efficient to utilize. To me, labeling something "nuke cannon", making it shoot 'splody things, and calling it a day is the lazy way out for developers to make a power weapon. Duel wielding is difficult to balance, but that makes it all the more rewarding when that balance is achieved. Perhaps the noob combo is balanced in a way that makes it the most effective combo in the game, but every map only offers one PP and one pistol. Perhaps some duel wield combos end up working well (SMG/PR) while others end up being less efficient at killing (duel PP's).

 

And while looking and feeling cool may have a neutral effect from a balancing standpoint, it sells.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Duel wielding may make the sandbox appear bloated in that there is a large amount of weapons in the sandbox, but when you look at the differences of each weapon, they are far from shallow, and are actually quite unique from each other.

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).

AR's can beat shotguns, swords, hammers, and all single wield SMG's at mid range, and the BR, Carbine, DMR, LR, sniper, beam rifle, and bi-rifle at close range. Lets also not forget that it can beat itself (other AR users) if it gets the drop on the enemy. IMO, after listing all the weapons it can beat based on where its used in its niche, its far from irrelevant or redundant.

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.

I agree, and by that logic, its ok to have the SMG, PR, and spiker have the same combat niche, just as it was for the AR and PR in CE, as well as the AR and SR in Halo 4.

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).

You just complained that duel wielding would make the AR redundant, and then immediately try to shoehorn the SSMG in? The AR would do better against a regular SMG compared to a SSMG with a x2 sight.

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).

Yes, and I had just said that giving it a slightly faster ROF wouldnt have made it looked down upon as much. Not to the point of Reach's or 4's where it could be unskillfully spammed for a lucky kill, but fast enough that it could remain a viable option at close-mid range without being too overpowering.

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?

So you want the spiker to have a 1hk melee?

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.

Yes, it is fair to players who didnt want to duel wield, because duel wielding can be considered a power weapon.

 

And before you say "then it isnt really an option, you have to duel wield to keep the upper hand", think about this: There are two power weapons on a map, the shotgun, and a sniper. You know where both of them are, but as soon as you go for one, the enemy will pick up the other one. Which one do you go for?

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.

[The Stig]

Guys, guys, just settle down... no need to worry!   

 

Can't we all just agree to disagree. And at least go as far as to say we want dual wielding in Custom games, so its at least possible to dual wield.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Guys, guys, just settle down... no need to worry! 

 

Can't we all just agree to disagree. And at least go as far as to say we want dual wielding in Custom games, so its at least possible to dual wield.

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).

[Ranger Intel]

I actually like this conversation between you two. They are very detailed and provide valuable points. Great quality posts. Please continue.

[SilentGamer64]

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).

 

Then by that logic, both the BR and CC are too similar and one of them must be removed. Because like DW weapons, both have a different ROF, level of accuracy, shots to kill, etc. Which brings us back to the shallow vs. cluttered debate. The BR and CC are unique enough to both be relevant in the same game, as are DW weapons.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

No, its short-mid range, in that it excells in short but can reach up to mid ranges via burst fire. And its true, the BR can beat CQC and short range weapons more effectively than the AR. But what if you have your AR is out, or you dont have a BR?

 

By saying "the AR's niche is usurped by mid range and short range weapons" you are referring to when it isnt being used in the right situations. In CE, you wouldnt use the AR against a pistol or sniper at mid range, or a shotgun at CQC-close (I say close range because the shotty in CE had the best range in the series). So does that mean the AR in CE was usurped by the other weapons in the sandbox? No. People used it in situations it was most useful in.

 

With DW in place, making the AR's usefulness dependent on the situation makes it arguably more skillful than it currently is, with its most common use being spray and pray. Using the AR's bloom to burst fire does virtually nothing at mid range against mid range rifles, and is more of an annoyance to them than anything. But using it against close range DW weapons with inferior range would give the burst fire more purpose rather than being a defensive mechanic to fend off scoped-in enemies.

 

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).

 

Copy-pasted from a point I just made above:

 

"Then by that logic, both the BR and CC are too similar and one of them must be removed. Because like DW weapons, both have a different ROF, level of accuracy, shots to kill, etc. Which brings us back to the shallow vs. cluttered debate. The BR and CC are unique enough to both be relevant mid-range weapons in the same game, as are DW weapons for close range."

 

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).

 

We would be better off giving the SAW a x2 scope and throwing it on the map (balanced) as a power weapon. As I said earlier, the SSMG would negatively disrupt the BR/CC's scope ins, whether it be constantly descoped or pelted with flinch. The reason full autos arent meant for longer ranges is because they have recoil, bullet spread, and low damage-per shot. Make it buff, and it becomes OP and hurts the BR/CC. Make it weaker, and it becomes the redundant weapon that no one uses and it still hurts the BR/CC in-scope.

 

I dont know if your proposed SSMG idea is an effort to introduce a unique weapon to the sandbox, or as a ploy to change the SMG so that duel wielding becomes irrelevant, but either way, it wont work with Halo's established sandbox.

 

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?

 

A 5sk magnum with CE's ROF would be able to hold its own against mid-range rifles fairly well at close-mid range, even without a scope. Duel wielded, it essentially becomes the reincarnation of CE's magnum, capable of a 3sk (or two shots from one magnum and three from the other). If the 3sk DW magnum, or the magnum with any other DW weapon for that matter is deemed OP, its accuracy could also be reduced when duel wielded, either with an enlarged reticule, or bloom (realistically, duel wielding would lower a soldier's accuracy anyways).

 

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.

So you're saying that an opponent could have more shields for a spiker's melee to bleed through compared to the AR? I suppose that could work in a balanced way, but requiring more or less shots isnt as much as an issue as the killtime is. By slowing the spiker's ROF, sure, it could take less shots than an AR before being able to perform a beatdown, but if the AR can fire faster than the spiker, it could get to the point where their beatdown killtimes are identical, or possibly even faster for the AR.

 

 

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?

 

You wouldnt place a rocket launcher in red base and a needler in blue base. The same applies to duel wielding, and Guardian is a good example for this. Assuming its BR/CC AR/SR starts, there is only one magnum and one PP on the whole entire map. Not only does this mean that only one person can use the DW noob combo, but that person has to travel to two different locations to obtain such an advantage, assuming another player hasnt already picked up one of the two weapons. On the other hand, some DW weapons are placed next to each other, like the pair of PR's in the hallway next to the bottom floor of the grav lift, or the pair of spikers near the tree stump. So really, you wont always have to travel to two different locations to pick up DW weapons, but when you do, there's a reason why those weapons arent placed near each other.

 

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.

 

Meaning one charge shot of the BS would disable shields and leave you with five extra shots for the headshot? Sure, and that would actually work well with DW in that two BS charge shots would be powerful enough to kill an enemy. That would make the BS a lot more skillful than the mauler, since with the BS you would have to wait for the recharge rather than being able to fire again immediately like you can with the mauler.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

 

Then by that logic, both the BR and CC are too similar and one of them must be removed. Because like DW weapons, both have a different ROF, level of accuracy, shots to kill, etc. Which brings us back to the shallow vs. cluttered debate. The BR and CC are unique enough to both be relevant mid-range weapons in the same game, as are DW weapons for close range.

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.

 

We would be better off giving the SAW a x2 scope and throwing it on the map (balanced) as a power weapon.

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 magnum with CE's ROF would be able to hold its own against mid-range rifles fairly well at close-mid range, even without a scope. Duel wielded, it essentially becomes the reincarnation of CE's magnum, capable of a 3sk (or two shots from one magnum and three from the other). If the 3sk DW magnum, or the magnum with any other DW weapon for that matter is deemed OP, its accuracy could also be reduced when duel wielded, either with an enlarged reticule, or bloom (realistically, duel wielding would lower a soldier's accuracy anyways).

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.

 

So you're saying that an opponent could have more shields for a spiker's melee to bleed through compared to the AR? I suppose that could work in a balanced way, but requiring more or less shots isnt as much as an issue as the killtime is. By slowing the spiker's ROF, sure, it could take less shots than an AR before being able to perform a beatdown, but if the AR can fire faster than the spiker, it could get to the point where their beatdown killtimes are identical, or possibly even faster for the AR.

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.

 

You wouldnt place a rocket launcher in red base and a needler in blue base. The same applies to duel wielding, and Guardian is a good example for this.

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.

 

On the other hand, some DW weapons are placed next to each other, like the pair of PR's in the hallway next to the bottom floor of the grav lift, or the pair of spikers near the tree stump.

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?