Movement Mechanic for Magnum

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

The introduction of sprint into Halo has been one of the most controversial changes to the franchise. Many are in favor of removing it, while others think it is/can be beneficial to gameplay. Personally, I'm not a fan of sprint in Halo, but I do see potential for a somewhat similar mechanic.

 

Those of you who have played Counter Strike probably know that some weapons (the knife, for instance) allow faster movement speed. This mechanic works well for the game, giving players the option to sacrifice superior firepower for speed to get to locations more quickly, but without rendering them completely vulnerable when doing so.

 

My idea is that, similarly to CS's mechanic, players gain a small speed boost (maybe 5-10%, but would require play-testing) when wielding the Magnum (and maybe similar weapons like the SMG). This would give these sidearms more purpose without making their kill-times "unrealistically" competitive with those of "primary" rifles like the BR and AR, respectively.

 

With the Magnum rebalanced to have a similar kill-time to the BR and allow faster movement, offset by the smaller magazine size and less effectiveness/ease-of-use at longer ranges (perhaps through a shorter red reticle range), it could have a greater purpose than merely a "secondary" or "backup" weapon that players wouldn't give a second thought about trading out.

 

What do you think? Could this mechanic be beneficial for Halo? Are there aspects of it you would change? If you don't like the idea, leave a comment discussing why.

[Unease Peanut]

No.

 

By the way the weapons aren't underpowered in any way. The Magnum in Halo 4 requires the same amount of shots to drop someone as the DMR. The kill times are hardly any different. Hell the last shot being a headshot might drop someone faster in CQC than most weapons.

 

I see no need in changing the movement speed with other weapons in your hands (I mean you'll still weigh the same with the heavy weapon on your back so it wouldn't make sense anyway).

[The Director]

No.

 

By the way the weapons aren't underpowered in any way. The Magnum in Halo 4 requires the same amount of shots to drop someone as the DMR. The kill times are hardly any different. Hell the last shot being a headshot might drop someone faster in CQC than most weapons.

 

I see no need in changing the movement speed with other weapons in your hands (I mean you'll still weigh the same with the heavy weapon on your back so it wouldn't make sense anyway).

I'm inclined to agree that the weapons are not overpowered. Vehicles on the other hand... But that's a different discussion entirely.

 

For myself, I like sprint. Being able to get from point A to point B quicker is a plus for me. Especially on the larger maps *coughvalhallacough*.

 

I do see how it could be a pain for those who get ran away from, but I don't see that as justification to remove it entirely. Even in Halo 2 and 3, running away was possible (and more often than not easy). Heh, my friend and I used to make a game out of who could run away the most when HLG was popular in H3. 

 

Anyways, the way to please everyone would be to add playlists that don't have sprint. Simple as that.

[Unease Peanut]

Oh yeah... Vehicles need to be made of something else other than paper maché.

Vehicles need their power back. When a Ghost or Warthog came at you you'd usually avoinnd a firefight in Halo: CE to Halo: Reach. Now I'm opening fire on a Ghost as soon as I see it and even winning that fight.

Not only that but I'm usually avoiding using vehicles altogether. Shouldn't be like that.

 

Sorry for the 

[Melody]

I believe sprinting makes the game move faster, in which makes games swift and fun to play. Therefore keep sprint in the game, besides I would believe you could run in one of those suits regardless of what ability you choose to take. But that's just my opinion.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

First off, after the Turbo Update the Magnum has the potential to kill in 1.33 seconds with 6 shots, whereas the DMR's kill-time is 1.53 seconds with 5 shots, and the BR's kill-time is 1.37 seconds with 4 bursts. However, the Magnum's bloom and short RRR greatly hinder its ease and reliability to achieve kills in such little time compared to these rifles You can spam the trigger as fast as you want, but unless you're at close range, you won't land all/most of your shots.

 

I'm not going to argue whether or not sprint makes the game pace faster, but whether or not it is the best way to speed up gameplay. Why is lowering your weapon to reach full speed a good thing?

[Unease Peanut]

Well there has to be a certain drawback for it. Have you ever tried sprinting as fast as you could and keeping a steady hand?

I think it's the best way to speed up gameplay in shooters. Your Pistol is a back-up plan and it shouldn't be more than that.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

I'm inclined to agree that the weapons are not overpowered. Vehicles on the other hand... But that's a different discussion entirely.

 

For myself, I like sprint. Being able to get from point A to point B quicker is a plus for me. Especially on the larger maps *coughvalhallacough*.

 

I do see how it could be a pain for those who get ran away from, but I don't see that as justification to remove it entirely. Even in Halo 2 and 3, running away was possible (and more often than not easy). Heh, my friend and I used to make a game out of who could run away the most when HLG was popular in H3. 

 

Anyways, the way to please everyone would be to add playlists that don't have sprint. Simple as that.

Adding playlist without sprint isn't the easy fix you think it is. Sprint is taken into account when designing maps for a game that uses sprint as a default mechanic, so removing the mechanic will just make the maps larger and play differently (certain jumps could not be made). Weapon balancing also takes sprint into account, as they have to make sure players can kill each other in a reasonable window of time (as in "before the enemy has the chance to run away with ease"). Combine those factors, and others like the spawning system (attempts to spawn players in areas with low enemy activity nearby, which becomes more difficult when players can move at two speeds) and the gameplay without sprint will play horridly, with less frequent and quickly resolved encounters and longer travel time to your destination that was intended to be reachable in a fraction of that time.

 

Think of fitting a shoe to a foot and then cutting off the big toe. Does the shoe still fit fine? Not likely.

Well there has to be a certain drawback for it. Have you ever tried sprinting as fast as you could and keeping a steady hand?

I think it's the best way to speed up gameplay in shooters. Your Pistol is a back-up plan and it shouldn't be more than that.

A certain drawback for what? Having a Magnum with a slight speed boost? The drawbacks are already present (shorter RRR and smaller magazine size than other precision weapons).

 

Every weapon needs to have a purpose. They need to be able to do something that either other weapons can't or perform better than other weapons in some way. The AR holds down short-range combat, BR mid-range, and DMR long-range (only speaking of UNSC weapons here for clarity and brevity). There is no place for the Magnum to excel anywhere here unless given something that the other weapons don't have.

 

Look at the Covenant arsenal. The Plasma Pistol isn't worthless because it can do something the Covenant rifles can't (charged EMP shot).

 

A "back-up plan" should be in the context of situations, not in the context of weapon design (especially not in an arena FPS). Intentionally making one spawning weapon weaker than the other is poor game design.

[Unease Peanut]

 

A certain drawback for what? Having a Magnum with a slight speed boost? The drawbacks are already present (shorter RRR and smaller magazine size than other precision weapons.

 

Every weapon needs to have a purpose. They need to be able to do something that either other weapons can't or perform better than other weapons in some way. The AR holds down short-range combat, BR mid-range, and DMR long-range (only speaking of UNSC weapons here for clarity). There is no place for the Magnum to excel anywhere here unless given something that the other weapons don't have.

 

Look at the Covenant arsenal. The Plasma Pistol isn't worthless because it can do something the Covenant rifles can't (charged EMP shot).

 

A "back-up plan" should be in the context of situations, not in the context of weapon design (especially not in an arena FPS). Intentionally making one spawning weapon weaker than the other is poor game design. If 

 

No a drawback for sprint as it is now. You said if it was really necessary to put down your gun whilst sprinting, it is.

 

It's a secondary weapon for a reason. You can't expect to have a gun that's equal or even better than your primary as that would make the primary not so primary anymore. (yeah that does sound wierd... bear with me)

 

The Pistol is a very capable weapon that deals much more damage than the pistols of the other arsenals. The Plasma pistol sure comes in handy against a vehicle but you better not try to use against infantry and expect to take em down. The Bolt Shot is highly lethal in CQC but lacks power at range and single fire mode. The Pistol is just an excellent gun overall effective to use to finish someone off when your primary runs dry or when you run out of ammo altogether.

 

It's a secondary for a reason!

 

Also making the Pistol equal or better than the primaries would render the special 2 primary guns perk uselss

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

You're repeating the increasingly hackneyed phrase "It's a secondary for a reason" and telling me HOW it is made an inferior weapon. You have yet to tell me WHY. Why is the Magnum made to be an inferior weapon? What is this reason that seems to elude me?

Also, you mentioned that making the Magnum a formidable weapon would make the "Firepower" perk useless... Why is that a bad thing? Why would you rather have a mix of good and poor weapon choices and need to use a perk to use only the decent ones when you could instead have all weapons balanced accordingly and do away with that perk? (I am against the concept of perks in Halo, but that's a different matter)

[depressant]

Sounds like you want a different game. Why would you be faster with a certain weapon? Also, if you speed up gameplay, it provides less fun

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

You're repeating the increasingly hackneyed phrase "It's a secondary for a reason" and telling me HOW it is made an inferior weapon. You have yet to tell me WHY. Why is the Magnum made to be an inferior weapon? What is this reason that seems to elude me?

Also, you mentioned that making the Magnum a formidable weapon would make the "Firepower" perk useless... Why is that a bad thing? Why would you rather have a mix of good and poor weapon choices and need to use a perk to use only the decent ones when you could instead have all weapons balanced accordingly and do away with that perk? (I am against the concept of perks in Halo, but that's a different matter)

 

It's an inferior weapon because it's not a Rifle. It's a Pistol. Rifles have more damage. That's the logic I think Deadnut is getting at here.

 

As it stands I believe the Pistol can be used as an effective weapon at low-mid ranges, but Rifles will outclass it. It's just a "Oh crap I've run out of DMR ammo, and I've only got my Pistol" thing. But I have had success getting kills with the Pistol even though I was being attacked by people using DMRs/Light Rifles/Carbines.

 

Like the Nut says, it's called a Secondary for a reason. Your Primary is what you'll use to wreck people with, and your Secondary is just for choice situations. Giving too much power to the Secondary effectively makes it like you're carrying two Primaries without the Perk. But your concept I don't believe would go to that extreme.

 

With that said I think your idea could work.

[Axilus Prime]

I don't think emulating Counter-Strike is a good idea at all. I found that mechanic stupid there, and Halo 5 doesn't need to go around causing the outrage that Halo 4 did. We don't need to do major overhaul changes in Halo. The degree of change between the previous games in the series is good.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Sounds like you want a different game. Why would you be faster with a certain weapon? Also, if you speed up gameplay, it provides less fun

What do you mean I want a different game?

 

Why would your melee stats change with a certain weapon? They have in all of the original trilogy games with AT LEAST one weapon each, and they all worked well (I've never heard any complaints about the CE AR's increased melee range being OP). Need I even mention the Energy Sword's melee? What makes slightly changing movement speed any different or detrimental?

 

So... according to your logic the slower the game, the funner it is? Interesting, considering many people view Halo 2 as superior to Halo 3 (which had a slower movement speed). Can you explain what you mean by this comment?

I don't think emulating Counter-Strike is a good idea at all. I found that mechanic stupid there, and Halo 5 doesn't need to go around causing the outrage that Halo 4 did. We don't need to do major overhaul changes in Halo. The degree of change between the previous games in the series is good.

I don't think the origin of a mechanic is relevant to whether or not it can work in a game. I find the mechanic to give more purpose to the weapons it is integrated into.

 

What about this mechanic would cause "outrage"? The fact that it fulfills the same goal as Sprint (albeit at a more conservative degree)? Assuming that you are referring to the similarities between this mechanic and Sprint, can you tell me the detrimental aspects that this mechanic shares with Sprint?

 

How do you measure "degree of change", at what "degree" is this mechanic, and at what "degree" are the changes made between previous games in the series? How is this a "major overhaul" of Halo's existing gameplay?

[Unease Peanut]

It's an inferior weapon because it's not a Rifle. It's a Pistol. Rifles have more damage. That's the logic I think Deadnut is getting at here.

 

As it stands I believe the Pistol can be used as an effective weapon at low-mid ranges, but Rifles will outclass it. It's just a "Oh crap I've run out of DMR ammo, and I've only got my Pistol" thing. But I have had success getting kills with the Pistol even though I was being attacked by people using DMRs/Light Rifles/Carbines.

 

Like the Nut says, it's called a Secondary for a reason. Your Primary is what you'll use to wreck people with, and your Secondary is just for choice situations. Giving too much power to the Secondary effectively makes it like you're carrying two Primaries without the Perk. But your concept I don't believe would go to that extreme.

 

With that said I think your idea could work.

 

Thank you.

Couldn't quite put it on paper

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

It's an inferior weapon because it's not a Rifle. It's a Pistol. Rifles have more damage. That's the logic I think Deadnut is getting at here.

 

As it stands I believe the Pistol can be used as an effective weapon at low-mid ranges, but Rifles will outclass it. It's just a "Oh crap I've run out of DMR ammo, and I've only got my Pistol" thing. But I have had success getting kills with the Pistol even though I was being attacked by people using DMRs/Light Rifles/Carbines.

 

Like the Nut says, it's called a Secondary for a reason. Your Primary is what you'll use to wreck people with, and your Secondary is just for choice situations. Giving too much power to the Secondary effectively makes it like you're carrying two Primaries without the Perk. But your concept I don't believe would go to that extreme.

 

With that said I think your idea could work.

Thank you.

Couldn't quite put it on paper

 

 

I understand that's his line of thinking. I'm asking for justification for why it must (or rather should) be so in terms of an arena shooter, especially when that arena shooter is Halo.

 

Remember that the Magnum in CE was more powerful than the BR has ever been. Certainly it was overpowered, with such a fast kill-time and long effective range, but its one of the reasons that the game was so successful. That wouldn't have changed if the Magnum had the aesthetic of a rifle. My point with this is that the physical appearance/design of a weapon doesn't automatically dictate how well or poorly a weapon can perform gameplay-wise.

 

Now I'm not supporting a return of the "God Pistol" but I think its better to give a weapon an actual role, rather than assign it a passive role that could easily be outperformed on all fronts by another weapon.

 

Honestly, if you think the Magnum best serves as a "secondary"/"backup", then why do you even want to have the Magnum as an option when you could instead spawn with another weapon that can actually do something that the BR can't (AR)?

 

As for the yellow text, I'll ask (again) why there is a need for "primary" and "secondary" weapon classification. If the best reasons you have are that it makes a perk necessary to spawn with two formidable weapons and that it just makes sense in the real world that a rifle will be better than a pistol, then I can't say that I agree with your reasoning.

 

Also, Halo 5: Guardians has been all but confirmed to not include custom loadouts/perks in standard game modes, as they are evidently reintroducing "fair starts" and describing it as "every player on blue team is the same as every player on red team".

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

Because starting with 2 Primary weapons from the get go without the perk is overkill.

 

Halo 5 is Arena gameplay. Like previous Halos you will most likely start with a Rifle/Pistol. If you give the Players 2 Primaries then you're empowering the Players a little too much.

 

The Pistol does have a role: being a secondary weapon used if you run out of Rifle ammo. It does not need a larger role because it's been doing fine till now.

 

Effectively "If it ain't broke don't fix it". Do I want the CE Magnum back? Yes. But I don't see it happening.

[Is not JL]

A) "This wouldn't change if the magnum had the aesthetic of a rifle" So really, this is just pointing out how the game should have a primary weapon.....?

 

Primaries and Secondaries are differently classified because Primaries and Secondaries are two different things. It's very simple.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Because starting with 2 Primary weapons from the get go without the perk is overkill.

 

Halo 5 is Arena gameplay. Like previous Halos you will most likely start with a Rifle/Pistol. If you give the Players 2 Primaries then you're empowering the Players a little too much.

 

The Pistol does have a role: being a secondary weapon used if you run out of Rifle ammo. It does not need a larger role because it's been doing fine till now.

 

Effectively "If it ain't broke don't fix it". Do I want the CE Magnum back? Yes. But I don't see it happening.

Have you played the games prior to 4? In Halo: CE, players would spawn with the Magnum and AR (neither of which were designed solely as a placeholder until the player could find a better weapon). Halo 2 didn't have many "primary" weapons due to the introduction of dual-wielding and the dominant BR (complete with its BXR and the like). Halo 3 often times spawned you with a BR and AR, and it was far from overkill. Heck, even Reach had the "Recon" loadout that started players with a DMR, AR, and Sprint.

 

Where in the definition of an Arena-oriented game does it say, or even imply, that some weapons should be made to be completely inferior to the "primary" weapon you spawn with? What Arena games have you played? Also, how does the need to use a perk for spawning with two primary weapons in H4 alleviate your concerns of it being "overkill"? Do you also consider the Survivor perk to be alright because you have to pick it over another perk? Did you not understand when I mentioned that perks are more than likely not even going to appear in Guardians?

 

"Being a secondary weapon used if you run out of rifle ammo" is not a purposeful role because literally ANY other weapon could fulfill it.

A) "This wouldn't change if the magnum had the aesthetic of a rifle" So really, this is just pointing out how the game should have a primary weapon.....?

 

Primaries and Secondaries are differently classified because Primaries and Secondaries are two different things. It's very simple.

The point I was making with that is that it doesn't matter if the weapon is a pistol or a rifle. It should be a formidable weapon regardless. It isn't pointing out how CE should've had a primary weapon because the Magnum already is a primary weapon in the game.

 

I'm well aware that "primary" and "secondary" weapons are different categories. I'm questioning why some people think that one of those categories exists and how having a secondary weapon actually benefits the game. Since its so simple, why don't you enlighten me without saying "Its a pistol, so it makes sense for it to be weaker," which is not a real reason.

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

Yes I have. I quite clearly remember spawning with the Rifles/Pistols in MP.

 

I said "Without the perk" so yea I meant Halo 5 Guardians. I know this man.

 

And the Pistol being a secondary: that is a role. I don't understand how you think it's not. It's so you dont feel defenseless when you run out of ammo. I didn't even use the Perk in Halo 4 and I managed. You're acting like it's taboo or something.

 

+ The AR is for CQC and I'd hardly give it as much props as a Rifle (since I hate using an AR).

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

And the Pistol being a secondary: that is a role. I don't understand how you think it's not. It's so you dont feel defenseless when you run out of ammo. I didn't even use the Perk in Halo 4 and I managed. You're acting like it's taboo or something.

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

[Twinreaper]

How about this, any weapon can be considered Primary or Secondary soley based on the PLAYER WHO IS USING IT!  This whole thread is full of nothing but factless BS, and all opinions.  And to make a correction, Halo 2 had faster movement mechanics than Halo 3.  Halo 3 plays the slowest of all the Halo titles.  Don't believe me, look up the data in the tags!  Been there done that, modded and hacked the games a lot.

 

Besides, what relevance does any of this have to Halo 5?  If there are no loadouts and the matches will all start off ala Halo 2 style, then everything you're complaining about is pointless and useless.

[rrhuntington]

Halo 3 plays the slowest of all the Halo titles.

True dat. I remember comparing the movement speed in Halo 3 to that of a slug. It was a truly painful game to walk around in.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

How about this, any weapon can be considered Primary or Secondary soley based on the PLAYER WHO IS USING IT!  This whole thread is full of nothing but factless BS, and all opinions.  And to make a correction, Halo 2 had faster movement mechanics than Halo 3.  Halo 3 plays the slowest of all the Halo titles.  Don't believe me, look up the data in the tags!  Been there done that, modded and hacked the games a lot.

 

Besides, what relevance does any of this have to Halo 5?  If there are no loadouts and the matches will all start off ala Halo 2 style, then everything you're complaining about is pointless and useless.

Whoa, hang on there Freddy! There's no need for that language. Also, I've been saying that there shouldn't be weapons intentionally designed to be inferior in Halo.

 

Who are you correcting on the movement comparison between H2 and H3? I'm well aware of the fact that Halo 3 had relatively slow movement speed (which is why MLG boosted it to 110% for professional competitive play).

 

How are our concerns over how to implement/balance the Magnum irrelevant solely because there will be no loadouts?

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

Whoa, hang on there Freddy! There's no need for that language. Also, I've been saying that there shouldn't be weapons intentionally designed to be inferior in Halo.

 

Who are you correcting on the movement comparison between H2 and H3?

 

How are our concerns over how to implement/balance the Magnum irrelevant solely because there will be no loadouts?

 

If all the weapons were on the same foot, and none of them were inferior to each other, then It would get boring reeeeeal quick. Each gun has it's own niche, and thrives in it. It's not rocket science that a gun outside of it's comfort zone won't survive (ie Using a Suppressor at long range).