Movement Mechanic for Magnum

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

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).

I agree that every weapon should have a niche, but feel that every niche should be equal in terms of usefulness (or in the case of power weapons, maintain a balance between power, scarcity, and skill). How would being able to combat BRs with a Magnum be any more boring than having to combat BRs with a BR to stand a chance off-spawn? Variety can't be the spice of life when all you can taste is one flavor.

[Is not JL]

 

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.

Secondaries benefit the game because they add the sandbox mechanic of a fallback weapon designed to give players who understand each weapon's quirks to gain a severe advantage so long as they position themselves correctly, and at the same time provide them a utility weapon that doesn't drain the ammo of their main damaging primary weapon. There's a reason why every single FPS out there always says 'switch to your secondary, it is faster than switching to your primary' in just about every tutorial. They are designed to be weaker because a Primary should trump a secondary in all situations should the two players fighting be of the exact same skill level.

 

If a player was an army, the primary is the infantry; the secondary is the supporting.....i dunno. Supporters.

 

 

 

Now, YOU tell me - Why would a game benefit from having everything other than power weapons be primary weapons?

[Twinreaper]

First off, don't correct or attempt to correct my use of language.  I don't attempt to and or correct your stupidity. 

 

Second, your qualms with the specific niche's or the preconceived notion that weapons are inferior to one another are all OPINION!  ANY WEAPON can be used effectively in the hands of the right player, regardless of each weapons settings.  I've witnessed players get destroyed by an assault rifle while wielding a rocket launcher, magnums destroy light rifle and DMR/BR users.  Hell I've even seen a plasma pistol go head to head with a sniper, and the PP came out the winner.  Again, just because a certain weapon operates differently and has/does less/more damage, that doesn't make it automatically the superior weapon.  It all depends on how the player uses the weapon and how skilled they are with it.  When engaging in combat, your surroundings and position play just as much a part of the battle as the weapon your using as well.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Secondaries benefit the game because they add the sandbox mechanic of a fallback weapon designed to give players who understand each weapon's quirks to gain a severe advantage so long as they position themselves correctly, and at the same time provide them a utility weapon that doesn't drain the ammo of their main damaging primary weapon. There's a reason why every single FPS out there always says 'switch to your secondary, it is faster than switching to your primary' in just about every tutorial. They are designed to be weaker because a Primary should trump a secondary in all situations should the two players fighting be of the exact same skill level.

 

If a player was an army, the primary is the infantry; the secondary is the supporting.....i dunno. Supporters.

 

 

Now, YOU tell me - Why would a game benefit from having everything other than power weapons be primary weapons?

Secondaries DON'T benefit the game bacause they don't actually add anything significant or purposeful to the sandbox. The role of a "fallback weapon" that "gives players who understand each weapon's quirks to gain a severe advantage so long as they position themselves correctly" can already be achieved by other weapons. Whether a weapon is "primary" or "secondary" should depend solely on the player's choices/playstyle and the situations the player is in.

 

Your attempted metaphor actually illustrates the problem with your mindset. You think the "primary" weapon is the only thing worth putting any significant effort or thought to, while the "secondary" weapon's representation is... just whatever?

 

"Why would a game benefit from having everything other than power weapons be primary weapons?"

 

When every weapon is "primary" and can hold its own, rather than being designed/balanced to be inferior, a player who has depleted his/her ammo on one weapon isn't completely vulnerable (as the player's other weapon is also balanced to hold its own, albeit with different pros and cons to make each one unique). If a player only has an intentionally inferior weapon, then he/she isn't even remotely on a level playing field with the opponent that does have a "primary" weapon. A level playing field has been a vital component of Halo's multiplayer and is what makes Halo a more skill-based game than most FPS on the console market.

 

 

First off, don't correct or attempt to correct my use of language. I don't attempt to and or correct your stupidity.

I don't even want to acknowledge the rest of your post because you clearly don't even want to hear others' opinions on the matter and started it all off with an insult... Please, if you want to voice your opinion, do so without degrading others.

[Drizzy_Dan]

Let's not let this turn into a flame war. It doesn't need to be that. For everyone in here, really.

[The Director]

Yep. I have a feeling the very next post will result in a warning point and the topic being locked.

[Caboose The Ace]

Well I bet you didn't expect this! ^

 

Where's my warning point.

 

Honestly because loadout weapons are pretty much confirmed not to be In H5g this is almost pointless ( at least the way the idea is now ) yes the idea could be tweaked. For example in H5g if you sprinted it takes two seconds to drawn your weapons and a full three seconds to even fire the first bullet. Three seconds is crucial in a shooter and so Sprint would have a true drawn back. Sprint for extra mobility but you add the risk of losing any gun fight you come across. < My idea for this.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

@ Emperor Caboose

How is this idea pointless without the inclusion of loadouts?

What if Halo 5: Guardians doesn't have Sprint?

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.

I wasn't asking if it was necessary to put down your gun while sprinting. I asked if sprinting was the best way to add a movement mechanic to Halo, and I certainly don't think so.

[Twinreaper]

Not that I'm defending or attacking sprint, but the way that the sprint mechanic is used in every game that has sprint, forces the player to not be able to fire while sprinting and requires a readying time coming out of sprint before you can attack.  Yes I realize you should logically be able to sprint and fire a weapon at the cost of accuracy, but this isn't real life, it's a game.  And as long as the mechanic remains the same across all titles that use it, I don't see the mechanic being a big deal.  It allows faster travel and map positioning.

 

As for the weapons issue, as I tried to state earlier, whether or not the company or devs or anyone else classifies a weapon as "primary" or 'secondary", that is all irrelevant.  Depending on the play style and skill of the player, a Plasma Pistol could be considered a primary, or even the magnum.  The classifications they use for these weapons isn't so much as them trying to dictate it's function, but a logical niche approach to categorize the weapons based on size, strength and overall usage.  If a large percentage of players only use the magnum as a backup or last ditch weapon, then they likely use that data and categorize it as a "secondary/backup".

 

That being said, I don't agree with equal starts like in Halo 2.  I agree more with letting the player adjust his/her play style and weapon preference to suit their skill level and map.  Not everyone is good with a DMR/BR, so why is it fair to everyone to start with those weapons?  It's only fair to those who are beasts with it.  I often see a lot of complaints like this, and they almost always stem from players who cannot seem to function effectively with anything BUT a precision weapon.  So yes, I do think you should be able to select any weapon as a primary loadout or starting weapon, outside the power ones, like the Sniper/Rocket/Splazer, etc...  But seeing as how 343i is going the Halo 2 starting route, it won't be an issue anyway.  Either way overall I don't care really, I won't be playing future Halo's.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

You think that the game should cater to everyone's play style... Halo is a competitive game. Catering to any and all play styles is unreasonable. If one player decides to do nothing but melee, should he able to spawn with a Hellboy-esque fist? If a player decides that his play style is to drive vehicles, should the game cater to that and allow him to spawn in a Ghost or Warthog? Where do you draw the line here? Assuming that you will draw a line, why are those play styles unsupported and others are? If the game must cater to various play styles by handing out the means to do so at-spawn, then the game is without any criteria to determine skill.

 

If you are playing a sport, you do not cater to the skills (or lack of skills) by allowing the players to use different equipment. Allowing one player to spawn with a precision weapon and another with an automatic weapon is comparable to having two archers, one where he wins by getting a bullseye and another where he wins simply by landing his shots on the target (regardless of position). It's unfair and uncompetitive, with one player having a disproportionate advantage over another. This is why equal starts are used in competitive play and why the multiplayers of the original trilogy were more successful.

 

You say that players can use whatever weapon they want as their "primary", depending on their play style, but doing so with some weapons (such as the Magnum in any Halo game after CE) is foolish. You are at a disadvantage with it unless you are at mid-range or further against a close-range weapon. The Magnum currently has NO reason to be used over another precision weapon.

 

You claim that equal starts aren't fair because not everyone is good with precision weapons? Not everyone is good at sports, which is why not everyone plays sports. The game should never cater to those without the skills to play them as the game is designed. Doing so makes the game itself unskillful and uncompetitive.

[Twinreaper]

And completely fair competition is achieved by forcing players to use a weapon they may not ever be good with?  The line is drawn with simple weapon starts.  I have no problem with standard starts ala Halo 2 style, I still wreck other players even today playing it on PC.  But every player in the world is NOT a pro with precision weapons, and each player may have his or her own niche that they are good with.

 

You speak about competition as if it's only achieved if players have equal starts.  Competition starts WITH THE PLAYER.  Anything can be competitive if the person playing wishes it to be.  That is what killed MLG for Halo, not the starts, equipment, abilities or mechanics.  It's the mentalities behind the players who they themselves appointed themselves to be the authority on competition.  Point is, if you are that skilled with the BR/DMR or whatever other weapon you start with, then you should be skilled enough to counter the enemy player regardless of what weapon they have.

 

All equal starts ensure, is that the weapon your starting with may put a disadvantage on other players at the start of the match.

 

As for sports, yes teams are allowed to use any brand or type of equipment so long as it adhears to regulations.  So yes, smaller thinner football players can use extra padding to give harder hits and recieve harder hits, different types of bats are used in baseball, as well as different sticks in hockey.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Your answer about where you draw the line intrigues me. Let me use your own argument: is it fair to limit what players can spawn with to weapons? Is it completely fair to determine skill/victory by how well or poorly can aim and shoot weapons?

If so, then why isn't it acceptable to have a common weapon used to better determine skill? After all, different weapons have different factors (aim-assist immediately comes to mind, but there are many more).

 

If not, then why limit players' choices to weapon selection at-spawn?

 

The reason precision weapons are considered more skillful is because headshots actually mean something. If players are incapable of accurately aiming for the head to kill faster, then they either need to keep practicing (there is a skill-based matchmaking system for a reason) or acknowledge that Halo (and probably the FPS genre in general) isn't for them. Other skills like jumping, strafing, and grenade-throwing factor in, but those are skills that can benefit players regardless of weapon setup.

[Twinreaper]

Headshots only become a factor after the shields have popped. There is no longer any significant reason to aim for the head in all your shots. Most players use body shots to drop the shields then aim for the head. Skill comes into play with how well you use a particular weapon. Each weapon has its own skill set and gaps, and it all depends on hoiw proficient you become.

 

Aim assist never bothered me cause I game on the PC mostly. Any ofvmy playtime in Reach, ODST and 4, aim assist actually made my shots more inaccurate.

 

As for strafing and jumping, those who are skilled at evasion tactics, only are successfull when going up against an opponent that isnt using a weapon with high spread ratio and or firing rate. So the weapon your using should not dictate your counter measures, the opponent and his weapon should dictate that.

 

Im sorry, but telling players they just suck and oh well go play another game, is the exact mentality i hate in this community now. When I go back and plkay CE and get accused of aimbotting or hacking, I dont counter and rage at people for sucking. I try to help those players become better by suggesting different tactics with a wide rasnge of counter weapons.

 

Sorry to say, but you sound like one of those typical precision mlg types that thinks balanced starts are fair because YOU get a weapon you dominate with, versus opponents who cannot. If im wrong, sorry. But thats what im getting from all this.

[The Director]

Staff Response
2 Posts removed.

 

Staff Response
Reason: Backseat moderating, replying to backseat moderating

 

Staff Response
Note: Moderators watch every topic. You do not need to post requesting people not to fight when it is apparent that you are not reading what is being posted. Failure to take preventative action for this behavior will result in disciplinary action.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

I'll admit that I don't view the way precision weapons are currently handled is infallible. I'd actually prefer if the system was based around a headshot multiplier, rather than instant kills on unshielded targets, and that both precision and automatic weapons were given balanced damage modifiers that even applied (although not as much) to shields. I see this change as requiring more skill, given that "headshots" i.e. "more damaging shots that reward good aim/shot placement" are desired throughout combat, rather than at end of it, and are possible with any weapon.

 

Regardless of my views on the matter, it still stands that precision weapons are currently more skillful to use (in terms of aiming/accuracy, which are paramount in any FPS) than automatic weapons because shot placement does matter at some point in combat. If all the automatics were projectile weapons, rather than hit-scan, then this would be more debatable.

 

It may be true that each weapon has its own skill gap, but the fact that some weapons (like the Magnum) are purposefully inferior makes it where gaining proficiency with such weapons is pointless, as a player who is equally (and at times even less so) proficient with another weapon (BR) will come out victorious in a typical 1v1 confrontation. I am obviously against this concept, but its true at this moment in Halo's most recent game (and all the games that came after CE, to be frank). Whether balanced to be inferior for the purpose of dual-wielding or being a "secondary" weapon, they are inferior all the same.

 

You can't just disregard factors like aim-assist because you play the majority of your games on mouse and keyboard. It does still factor in, and for those that are accustomed to it, then engaging an opponent when your weapon has the lower red-reticle-range (range at which the weapon's aim-assist is enabled) is far from fair.

 

Strafing/jumping is far from pointless unless you're against a Rocket-wielder at close-to-mid range or the like. If the weapon they're using has high spread, then you moving isn't going to make their shots connect any more consistently.

 

I never said that players should be ashamed/insulted and told to never play again (I don't see why you found it necessary to leave out the "keep practicing" part and add the "you suck"). I actually found a young gamer playing H4 the other day (rare occasion of me playing it, but I like reminding myself of the source material that I want changed) who was only using the Storm Rifle. I checked his post-game stats and Service Record, finding his K/D to be quite negative, and sent him a message on advice (he did thank me and I further encouraged him to keep practicing).

 

If anything, what I've been trying to say on this thread is that I desire the Halo sandbox to be without inferior weapons. Who knows? If they manage to actually make each and every weapon in the sandbox a viable/competitive weapon, then my opinion may likely be swayed in favor of allowing the freedom you desire. As it is now, however, I am adamantly against it.

 

I am not "MLG". I am a typical Halo fan who feels that victory should be earned against players of equal skill with equal equipment. I concede that "equal" doesn't necessarily mean "identical", but the current balance and setup of the game is far from equal. The vast number of "BR or nothing" players (which you incorrectly assume I am) is a living, breathing testament to that fact. I started this topic with an idea to balance the Magnum, with a hopeful vision that it would be on-par with the "primaries" of the sandbox. I am not objectively against spawning with different weapons. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the presence of unfairly balanced weapons with disproportionate amounts of skill necessary to use to their full potential, and therefore with spawning with different weapons when such a problem exists.

[Twinreaper]

Correction to you, the weapons are not hit-scan.  They are imitation hit-scan.  Each projectile has a speed defined, even the precious precision weapons and covie/forerunner energy ones. 

 

And the reason I chose the "You suck" phrasing, is because that's exactly what goes through your head as a first thought when playing people of lesser skill.  Don't try to rationalize or say you don't do that, cause thats a lie.  There is nothing wrong with thinking that way, it's natural.  I do it all the time.  But where that initial thought takes most players in future encounters with those of lesser skill is whats important and hurting Halo as a community.

 

It is clear we have two different stand points based on our age range and different experience in the genre.  I respect your view but ultimately i can never agree with all aspects of it.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Disregard double-post. 

[Twinreaper]

Less skill?  I can take out a BR user cqc using an smg.   Oh and I edited my post, but I guess it didn't update till you already posted.  My bad. lol

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Correction to you, the weapons are not hit-scan.  They are imitation hit-scan.  Each projectile has a speed defined, even the precious precision weapons and covie/forerunner energy ones. 

 

And the reason I chose the "You suck" phrasing, is because that's exactly what goes through your head as a first thought when playing people of lesser skill.  Don't try to rationalize or say you don't do that, cause thats a lie.  There is nothing wrong with thinking that way, it's natural.  I do it all the time.  But where that initial thought takes most players in future encounters with those of lesser skill is whats important and hurting Halo as a community.

 

It is clear we have two different stand points based on our age range and different experience in the genre.  I respect your view but ultimately i can never agree with all aspects of it.

Even if this is true (a link would be appreciated), how is this even a significant matter? The precision weapons still outclass the automatics, even at close range in some cases (2 BR bursts + melee, at least in H4). They still don't have the value that a headshot-capable weapon has, nor do they require (or allow) the same accuracy as the precision weapons do. They still require less skill.

 

If saying/thinking "you suck" of or about lesser-skilled players, and you consider it "natural" and "do it all the time", then why did you try to belittle me/label me a tryhard for saying that some people are less skilled and need to either keep practicing or find something they're better at (and you've seen that I opt for them to continue playing and getting better)?

 

Age range? You have no idea how old I am, nor I you. This seems to me like an attempt to discredit my opinion/beliefs on the assumption that I am significantly younger(?) than you. What's more is that my "age range" is irrelevant to what I think should come of a game that I have loved for years. Out of curiosity, what aspects DO you agree with?

Less skill?  I can take out a BR user cqc using an smg.   Oh and I edited my post, but I guess it didn't update till you already posted.  My bad. lol

Exactly. You had to do nothing more than aim center mass and hold the trigger, with minimal adjustments to compensate for recoil. Your BR-wielding opponent had to aim specifically for your head (which is more difficult to do at close-range than mid-range) to inflict the most amount of damage, whereas you merely had to hit him. It took less skill. The fact that you used a weapon that excels at close-range over a weapon that excels at longer ranges and came out victorious doesn't change that, but serves as an example.

 

Also, would you mind specifying in which Halo game you did this?

[Twinreaper]

It was Halo 2.  But it did take skill.  Most BR users in Halo 2 jump around like crazy.  Let me explain, I play Legacy layout inverted on a 1 sensitivity.  My turning speed is so slow, I have to be able to read and anticipate a player to connect with anything but a precision weapon.  so in terms of skill, it takes real skill to pull off what i did.

 

I would go into the details for hit-scan, but that would require me to load up one of my map editors take pictures then upload them.  At this hour it's too late, and it's something Ive done about a million times on this site lol

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Out of curiosity, is there any reason other than personal preference why play at such a low sensitivity?

 

I still find that my opinion of precision weapons taking more skill (in terms of aiming/accuracy) than automatics is true. Let me explain: had you been wielding a BR with the same settings in this same scenario, then you would have needed to focus even more so on reading and anticipating your opponent's actions. By no means am I saying that what you did was not skillful, only that doing so and landing a headshot under the same circumstances would be more skillful.

 

In regards to your comment "I respect your view but ultimately i can never agree with all aspects of it.", I'd like to know what aspects you did actually agree with.

[ProjectShadow]

they could make it so that when you assassinate your spartan holds them by the throat and shoots them in the head

[xxBEASTLYBOYZxx]

I think that would make the game more balanced. People would actually want to use the smaller guns in order to get to the rocket launcher, or whatever powerful weapon it is, or to get to the good vehicles, or even just flanking quicker. If you give people with small weapons like say a 5% boost, then people with rocket launchers, saws, etc. should get a speed decrease. Like they already did with the mounted turrets.