Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

3,034 profile views
  1. The bloom as implemented in Reach is terrrrrible. Take a scenario where a flag carrier is about to round a corner, and if they do, they win the game. It's all up to you, and they're positioned in such a way that you don't have time to take all paced shots, but if you spam at max ROF they might die. In that case the ONLY play is to spam, and whether you kill them or not it's bullshit either way.
  2. A mod that replicated the half screen would be cool, cuz a lot of times nade tricks use hud elements that are dependent on that specific splitscreen layout. Plus then you are training the same muscle memory for LAN
  3. Wait on xbox? And followup if so, is it a half screen or just the regular 4:3 box with higher FOV?
  4. Well... I mean... yeah? But the game isn't "pull the trigger when your reticle turns red". It's center the enemy on your screen and kill them. If an enemy is IN your FOV, and then ceases to be by their actions (jump, strafe, movement ability), then you did not react quickly enough and aim at them well enough to prevent that. I don't really see how what I'm saying is controversial at all. If some H5 guy comes at you with a shotty, jumps onto your head, then jumps and hits a jumpjet Dougie before clambering onto a lamp post or whatever the fuck happens in that game, will it be easier to aim at him throughout that set of moves in 70° or 100°? To me there is an obvious answer. I would say the opposite in the case of a guy cross map corner peaking you: give me 70°. Aiming isn't just sniping or just CQC. It's both, and no one setting is ideal for everything.
  5. The point is, "aiming" isn't just a matter of your x/y coordinates vs the volume of pixels of the enemy all in a vacuum. It's the accuracy of moving your reticle from point A to point B in a manner effective in the conditions of the game. Honing in on the enemy is part of that, especially when you're talking about thumbsticks with maximum velocities determined by your sensitivity. A blanket statement like lower FOV = easier to aim is meaningless when you're talking about needing to react to moving targets at various distances. You could lower your FOV to the point where enemies take up 50% of your screen, and you'd never miss if they happened to be in front of you. Would that mean that you're aiming well? I would argue no.
  6. I think that's a matter of preference though. Yes low FOV makes everything appear larger, but it also increases the relative screen distance you have to cover when you make aim adjustments. Imagine you're cross map 10x'd on a player top red HH, they fall off, and you try to track their fall in 10x. You'd have to cover maybe like 3 "screen heights" worth of vertical space to reach the ground. In 2x that scenario happens all on one screen, and the relative distance your reticle has to travel is much smaller. I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about math-wise, but basically the red arc length is 10x and green is 2x. Here is a comparison I made in Overwatch, between 80° (red) and 103° (yellow) - Yes, yellow's head is smaller, but it's also a shorter flick to change targets, which to me is easier. The yellow adjustment also appears slower than the red adjustment made at the same sensitivity, because the overall image is changing less (the pixels of the bot don't have to move as far on your screen). When the pixels from the image are scrolling by at a relatively slower speed, it can make on the fly adjustments easier. Taking that to an extreme, a 20° FOV would make everything absolutely enormous. It would be like walking around permanently in 10x zoom. So yeah their head would be huge, but a single strafe movement would cause the enemy to completely leave your screen. Your reaction time would have to be inhuman to accurately track it.
  7. Looks cool. I know in h1 at least, diagonal aiming is a bit weird. A lot of people have the muscle memory to whip their reticle in a partial circle/arc rather than take the straight diagonal path.
  8. Like I said, if it went from a D- to a D+ I'm not really interested. Mat fucking Logan is in here saying the game sucks. As for the rest of all that... okay? Have fun on MCC, more power to you.
  9. That's something I hadn't considered. Probably does make shots look behind and not lead properly by the time the animation plays. It still doesn't add up for me. If split screen is indeed too easy (I've never played it), then I guess we'll just have to wait for xbox emulation to catch up to 60fps to find out if mcc is a fundamentally different game or not. Seeing things like bullets redirecting to center hitbox and laggy off host players completely dominating with constant 3 shots seems to indicate that there is more going on than controllers and framerate. Edit: also, the number of times I've seen someone post that the newest patch made it "so much better" has to be placebo. I watched og2 play the other night and it looked pretty awful. If it went from a D- to a D+ that isn't really worth talking about.
  10. Sure, the variables may all be the same, and I'm sure that plays out in split screen. The halo PC netcode with the no lead mod is obviously a major contributing factor. Anyone who has put any serious time into OG cannot honestly believe that every snipe they are given credit for on mcc is deserved. The game definitely gives out "eh, close enough" shots all the time, and if someone can't see that, then I'd imagine they vastly overestimate their own personal skill level. I think people are developing a weird bias because they've spent way too much time on a shitty version of halo.
  11. I guess what I'm saying is that it very well may be easier/more responsive to PLACE your reticle, but that's it's the WHERE you should place it that differs between the 2 games, and is the more important factor when considering the different game feels. Now admittedly I have played maybe 1% of the MCC that most in here have, and a majority of that came during launch. But in my experience, anything in the chillout/prisoner range of battles required zero lead, and it shouldn't be like that. Maybe it is different now and my post doesn't apply anymore?
  12. While there is no doubt that framerate and controller tech make actual reticle placement easier, I don't believe that that has anything to do with the practical differences in "shooting" between the 2 games. Moreover, anything that improves a player's control over the game mechanics should be encouraged and embraced. We should be playing on 300fps if it was possible. The issue is that the reticle placement required for a kill in 2 identical scenarios is different depending on which game you're playing. So often in OG, a centered red reticle is a miss because that's NOT where you're supposed to be aiming based on the in-game factors (your strafe, enemy strafe, distance between you). Sometimes the shot that hits is so far off the opponent that the reticle is still blue. On MCC, the time spent as well as amount you should be leading off of your opponent is far, far less. The game is simply different; closer to 'hit-scan'. That has everything to do with the fact that Halo PC (with a lag compensation mod layered on as well) is a different game, with different mechanics designed in an attempt to facilitate online play. It would be interesting if someone made a side-by-side video of OG and MCC, with practical examples of necessary reticle placement for a kill. Increasing distances in halo meters measured with the oddball, strafing the same direction as well as opposite directions. I would guess that MCC would be far more forgiving on placement (perhaps depending on your ping), and actual placement would be much closer to centered on the enemy.
  13. I think the 50-10 games might actually be more common at the low level. It doesn't take a genius to run top mid with OV, and run camo snipe or rocket and shoot at whatever you see. It isn't even hard to find the enemy compared to many maps. Just keep circling and you'll inevitably see them. I think where the high level play comes in is taking control back. Giving a random or top spawn, sticking and moving with the ports, banking good nades, nading camo down, target prioritization, etc etc
  14. To offer a counterpoint to the idea of aiming with the bottom of your reticle, often times it's more important to apply consistent, reliable damage than to go for the harder, but fastest possible kill. Also in instances where you're engaged in a 1v1 strafing pistol battle, aiming too high causes you to miss shots over the opponent's shoulders that would have connected had you been aiming lower. Yes, aiming bottom-reticle means the shots that hit will always be headshots, but it is also easier to miss. You can still hit chin/neck and get headshot damage, and also apply body shot damage along the way by hitting shoulders. People underestimate the average in-game time to kill when everyone is strafing, ducking, using cover, etc. anyway. Of course this is for real halo. Maybe mcc works differently.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.