Jump to content

A6ENT of CHA0S

Member
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the Shadow Run series. I looked it up and found that to deal extra damage, you have to "call in a shot". Not knowing the gameplay, much of the jargon is beyond me, but it sounds like you have to try and guess what part of your target is its weak point and won't know until you have made the attack. Is this the case?
  2. I wasn't saying that Halo 2 and Halo 3 aren't "Halo". I pointed out that they made changes from how CE played but were still considered "Halo", despite drastic changes like: shield strength/recharge rate, removal of health packs, introduction of a different utility weapon, and the list goes on. How would having headshot multipliers detract from everyone having the same equipment, fighting for map control/power weapons, "and everything else"? Actually, according to The Fall of Reach, it mentions that shield strength can vary between different parts of the armor. John-117 actually lowered the shield strength under his feet, due to the shields tending to nullify friction (which would make him more likely to slip). I'm aware of how the heashot system currently works. I asked why this is the best system to have and why there is a double standard between how damage is dealt to shields and health (from a gameplay standpoint). Grenades wouldn't be required to have "headshot" multipliers. Pretty simple solution to that "issue", although I'm not really sure I'd call it an issue. How would headshot multipliers constitute as a mechanic in the game making combat more difficult? How do you view being rewarded for superior shot placement/grenade-throwing (which requires skill) as NOT determined by the individual player's skill? If you think that because the mechanic makes damage more substantial when the player inflicts damage on the target's head, then why are you in favor of headshots as they currently are? How can you view rewarding players' superior positioning and shot placement as a "crutch", but think that lowering shields equally by shooting your more-skilled opponent in the foot is acceptable and even "nice"? I find it somewhat ironic that you said the bolded bit, considering that (with the current system) this would only be true with precision weapons and only when shields were down. Headshot multipliers would also make it where "proper shot placement would land more damage". How does the "silly mechanic" of headshot multipliers allow less-skilled players to survive longer? How does aiming and shooting the head for the most possible damage not constitute as "making the player make a move to be able to live longer"? Headshot multipliers wouldn't make a player "completely written off as a kill" like you claim it would. If the attacked player were to turn around, put on a decent strafe, and fire back at the attacker, then he/she would have a better chance of victory if his/her aiming skills were better. If not, then the attacked player didn't deserve to come out victorious. Catching your opponent off-guard should give you an advantage but not absolutely guarantee the kill (depending on each player's skill and equipment), and implementing headshot multipliers wouldn't change that dynamic. How on earth can you draw comparisons between headshot multipliers and what I can only assume you are referring to as the Boltshot? The logic here is exceptionally flawed. If simplicity was Halo's goal in regards to how weapons affect shields and health, then there would only be one weapon and it would do the same damage no matter where the player's shots landed. As for the canonical explanations being necessary, I'd like to know how a few changes were justified in the lore: changes in movement speed throughout the games inability to sprint in the original trilogy inability to board enemy vehicles in CE de-scope varied grenade carrying capacity, grenade damage, etc. how the Covenant has access to multiple forms of ONI technology over the course of Halo 3 (Bubble Shield, for example) changes in Elite size, stature, and shield strength in Reach how/why the motion tracker is more advanced in Reach than in the original trilogy Also, there have been changes from the CE mechanics, like the faster shield recharge and removal of health packs in Halo 2-3. This is a change of how players receive/recover from damage canonically explained through the introduction of the MJOLNIR Mk. VI armor (with upgraded shield tech and bio-foam injectors). This development in the lore was made to justify the changes in gameplay, rather than vice versa. What if this change was shot down during development because “it’s not Halo” or “It wasn't this way in CE”?
  3. If "It's not Halo" was a valid reason for not adding/tweaking something, then we never would have gotten destructible vehicles, vehicle boarding, or dynamic elements in multiplayer maps. There would never have been any changes, save for a few new weapons. By your logic regarding the BR's shot relevance, landing a single shot from a burst faster than your opponent holds more relevance than landing multiple shots from a burst. This isn't the case when shields are involved, so why should it be the case when shields are not involved? I never mentioned that I was in favor of spread. I agree that if a player can accurately make a shot past their weapon's RRR, the game should allow it (but obviously not aid through aim-assist). There is indeed "luck" when random elements like spread/bloom are involved, but how do headshot multipliers in place of the traditional "insta-kill" headshots relate to this? This change wouldn't make aiming more difficult. This change makes aiming more important.
  4. Seriously? The only reason you could think of to shoot this idea down was because "it's not Halo"? Ever since Halo 2 we have seen various changes, both good and bad. The difference is that people will always be more vocal about what was done wrong than what was done right. You literally seem willing to shoot down ANY change to gameplay, even one that increases the skill gap and makes a difference between the player who landed one BR shot on their un-shielded target and the player who landed two or three (in the current system, they are rewarded the kill equally). First off, where a mechanic/idea originated is not relevant to whether or not it will work for any particular game. What is relevant is whether or not it adds anything positive to the gameplay, whether or not it hinders other aspects of gameplay, and whether or not implementing the mechanic is worth what it takes away (if it does). Secondly, CS isn't the only game that uses headshot multipliers (in fact, most shooting games do). CS has gameplay in mind where moving while aiming/shooting is ill-advised while TF2 has more emphasis on both moving and shooting at the same time without impairing accuracy (similar to Halo in this respect), and yet they both have headshot damage modifiers. Can you give any legitimate reasoning why this shouldn't be implemented, rather than the hackneyed cop-out "It wouldn't be Halo"?
  5. I think having shields flare more when shot in the head would be a good addition to this concept, but I don't know how animations could communicate that the target was shot in the head (unless they violently flinched, which I don't like the thought of). However, I could see hit-markers change color, enlarge/lengthen, or something similar when the player lands a headshot. I think to balance the Carbine's high rate-of-fire compared to other precision weapons, it should require two headshots to an un-shielded target to kill. Beyond that, I'm not really sure about the specifics of balancing these weapons (as you can't really know without being able to test them). I agree that even if headshot multipliers weren't applied to shields, they should be applied to un-shielded headshots. If two players (both using BRs) manage to take down the other's shields and player 1 lands two or three headshots, he/she should be victorious over player 2 who landed only one headshot. That said, having headshot multipliers on shielded targets would only make accuracy.shot placement more important, thus making the weapons more skillful/widening the skill gap. I can definitely see where you're coming from on the RRR of automatics being about the same as that of un-zoomed precision weapons. Weapons without zoom should be effective at mid-range, but not allow easier use than precision weapons at longer ranges without needing them.
  6. Why do you think it would only work for single-shot precision weapons? Saying that it being applied to burst.auto weapons would only add randomness is like saying the BR being a burst weapon instantly makes it random. You say that even if only applied to semi-auto precision weapons, it would be rather pointless and isn't tackling the root of the problem, but you haven't elaborated on why and haven't said what the "root of the problem" is...
  7. This system could be incorporated and maintain the BR's signature 4sk. Its all a matter of making the headshot multipliers work for that. I'm not sure how I feel about returning the Magnum to a 3sk, but it really does depend on a lot of factors (rate-of-fire, magazine size, red-reticle-range, etc.)
  8. I think precision and proper shot placement should be rewarded with a faster kill-time. However, the current method of rewarding these skills is far from infallible. As it currently stands, you precision weapon's shot placement is irrelevant until your target's shields are fully or nearly depleted. You can shoot your shielded target in the head or on the toe and it all counts the same, just as it is with non-precision weapons (like automatics). I'd like to see headshots do more damage than "bodyshots", regardless of shields or firing mode of the weapon. By this, I mean: Headshots on shielded targets have headshot multipliers (more damage to shields when shooting the head) for both "precision weapons" and "automatics". Headshots on un-shielded targets have greater headshot multipliers than headshots on shielded targets (in the case of UNSC weapons, vice versa in the case of Covenant weapons). Headshot multipliers for the BR should kill with two or three rounds on an un-shielded target (getting one headshot out of three on an un-shielded target should not give you the kill). Automatics like the AR have smaller reticles, less spread, and maybe even a static RRR halfway between the scoped and un-scoped RRR of precision weapons (but still without a zoom function). Balance the headshot multipliers/kill-times between the automatic and semi-auto/burst-fire weapons. These changes to the sandbox would make gameplay with these weapons more skillful, as shot placement would be important throughout combat rather than just at the end of encounters with precision weapons. What do you think?
  9. Honestly, I only really liked the changes you proposed for the Spike Grenade. It doesn't seem right to me to have grenades that don't require good placement to achieve good results. The Pulse and Shard types you described both have too much autonomy for my tastes (especially the Shard grenade, with homing projectiles).
  10. i can understand your concerns, but in tournament-level play (like MLG) only a select few weapons are used. If this mechanic was viewed as advantageous in the sense you described, then the Magnum could either be placed on-map in more competitive settings or absent from these settings altogether (without having the impact that no sprint would have on H4 gameplay). This mechanic basically serves the same role as the Speed Boost power-up, but to a lesser extent and also dictates your minimum kill-time while using it.
  11. The Magnum in your example (12-round mag) wouldn't be at a disadvantage in terms of ammo capacity, because each shot from the Magnum would do more damage than each individual shot of the BR's burst (if it did the same damage or lower, then the Magnum would be horrendously under-powered). Keep in mind that the BR is burst-fire, so it's 36-round magazine equates to 12 shots. A 12-round Magnum would not objectively have a smaller magazine capacity. It does make sense because you have less range of movement when you don't have to support a rifle and aim down it. With a pistol, you don't have to worry as much about stability and support. Even if it didn't make the most sense, this is a video game. How did you come to the conclusion that a longer-duration sprint would be appropriate? I think the issue here is that I'm hoping/assuming that sprint isn't in H5:G, but I get the impression that you at least feel that it will be (whether you're in favor of it or not). Am I correct in that assumption?
  12. I know that you don't personally decide what fits for Halo. I asked what aspects you (as a fellow Halo fan) find Halo to be based around. Personally, I find Halo to be based at its core around the concept that every player is equal in equipment, but not in skill, and that the victor of an encounter/match should be determined by player input (acquisition of power weapons, positioning, conscious decisions about when to use which weapon, and how well players can use those weapons). I then asked you if and how the concept and/or proposed execution of this mechanic may compromise what you find to be the staples of Halo's gameplay. About the whole "using CoD/CS elements" thing, I don't really believe it's relevant where the mechanic originated. What matters to me is if the mechanic can work in Halo and if it can do so without compromising the established principles of the game.
  13. What would you consider to be "the original vision of the game" and how would this concept detract from that vision? How is this concept comparable to having X-ray vision in a CoD title? What is CoD's original vision and how would X-ray vision as an ability detract from that? Haven't the CoD games essentially already had this, with the inclusion of UAVs and heartbeat/thermal attachments to weapons? Considering how similar many new features in CoD's newest installment are to those made in Titanfall (which does have something almost exactly like Promethean Vision), this example may very well come to pass. Also, wouldn't X-ray vision make the "original vision for the game" more transparent!? *ba dum tss* ... Sorry I couldn't resist.
  14. First off, let me just say that, despite the condescending vibes I got from certain parts of your post, your example of the Scattershot and its gimmick were actually quite spot on IMO. Now then, would you kindly quote me on when I said that spread and recoil were the same thing? I asked that if your ideal Magnum had a static reticle the same size as that of the CE Magnum and no recoil, then how is it possible for it to have more spread than the CE Magnum (unless of course the spread is greater than the reticle depicts, which makes me wonder why the reticle would be a disproportionate size to the actual accuracy of the weapon). I am also aware that spread and bloom are not one and the same. Bloom is spread that increases in radius with continuous fire. My question is: Why is spread acceptable to you when bloom is not? After all, standard spread is always present, while bloom is only really present with rapid fire. Again, I understand the role of the SMGs as you've presented it, but don't agree that its niche of having a slightly further effective range than the Shotgun and being at a loss against the AR is worth adding the weapon in such a configuration. I've already stated that I agree with you on the example of the Scattershot as a gun with a gimmick, so let me ask you this: Would adding a movement speed increase to the Magnum not determine how and when you used the weapon (by its own merit or combination with other mechanics/attributes)? Would a Magnum with the same kill-time and shots/bursts-to-kill as the BR, but an 8-round magazine and movement speed increase not lose any and all reasons to use it over the BR (its "identity", so to speak) without the speed increase? Notice that these questions are the criteria that you defined as the distinction between a gimmick and a legitimately integrated mechanic. My suggestion isn't that the Magnum should be weaker than other weapons (again, I'd prefer an identical or near-identical kill-time and shots-to-kill as the BR), but that it has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the other weapons. Just because a weapon has cons to it compared to another weapon doesn't make that weapon weak. The Sniper Rifle has disadvantages in the form of a smaller reticle, less aim-assist, and a smaller magazine size when compared to nearly any other weapon in the sandbox, but the Sniper Rifle is certainly far from weak.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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