Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Arlong said:

1. It’s just personal preference, and it was your choice to use a lower fov, the human eyes can see 180 degrees. 
2. I as a gamer don’t give a damn if the artist feels their work isn’t appreciated I play the game to have fun(I know such a ridiculous thought how dare I not care about the art) 

3. This isn’t a bad thing, if low fov causes people to miss shots, that’s literally the game preventing me or anyone else to get better because god forbid we play another game with a higher fov, hells most gamers don’t use a fov above 120 because it’s harder to aim now. Most of us would at the very least want 90.

4. This is not a positive, you being able to reposition because Of low fov is not a positive. 

5. Most of these points irk me because it seems to only benefit basically no one. Low fov does 3 things. 1, cause motion sickness, 2, irks me because of option 4 because now I can’t kill this guy because he moved a sleight inch off my screen so now he gets to live.  And 3rd it causes sensitivities to feel slow or faster than needed.

forgiving fov is not a bad thing, if it helps someone improve that’s a good thing, but restricting that player or players from playing on a fov of their preference is telling that player adapt or gtfo. 

1: That's the problem, it shouldn't be a choice.  There are a lot of aspects of gaming that assumes an even playing field.  This new Modern Warfare beta had 4 different aim assist settings ranging from minor to majorly assisted.  Tell me why that's possibly a good thing.  There's no point offering players choices if the choice they're being forced to make has no information surrounding it.  This same phenomenon bothers me with the amount of advanced aim settings in Titanfall, Apex, and even Halo 5 where they allow you to tinker with the radial deadzone, axial deadzone, aim curves, aim acceleration, aim assistance, X and Y sensitivity individually.. at some point it leaves you wondering every time you lose a gunfight "Maybe if I spent another 3 days tinkering with my aim I would have won that fight".  That's not a good thing because there's no scenario where that isn't going to be true, you'll never truly know if you're playing at your capacity or if the opponent was.  If I chose to play on 120 FOV in titanfall and lost a 1 on 1 gunfight with someone, it would probably make me think "damn, I should've just dropped my FOV and they would've been way easier to shoot at from that distance, they were probably on 80" and I was on a low FOV in a fight and get shot by angle that I probably could have seen on a higher FOV I'll have similar reservations.  There's no scenario left where it's not going to bother me. It's a lose-lose. I'd rather lock everyone to a similar playing field and get rid of that feeling entirely.

 

2: It's easy to say that from your position but a huge aspect of Halo, and probably every game you love, comes from the thousands and thousands of tiny artistic decisions made every day during development that you will never come to appreciate.  Taking a quick gander over at Splitgate will tell you exactly how far you can fall without the proper artistic direction and how unappealing your game can become.  The below are youtube screengrabs of Reach gameplay at 70 FOV and 120 FOV respectively.

mGXj5p4.png

 

That yellow structure in front of the player is not that far, only a few feet.  A sprint jump could probably pretty easily make it, but you would have no idea looking at that bottom shot.  It might as well be across the battlefield.  And while you might not be experiencing this phenomena looking at the shot it's probably because you already have an understanding of the space.  That FOV frankly makes everything look a little silly and unbelievable and the larger your FOV becomes, the less the space between two items becomes difficult to distinguish.  Take a gander at narrow depth of field photography to understand what I'm talking about, it gives you a really strong understanding of spacial depth in a 2d image that otherwise you couldn't possibly have because it's not a real 3 dimensional space.  Low FOV has a lot of merits that lend itself into that, I'd imagine if Halo had historically used a much higher FOV the average player would have a much harder time placing greandes and predicting arcs because of it.

 

3: Again you're making these bold claims when you're taking for granted thousands of decisions made for you that you've already benefited off of. Console aiming is difficult with thumbsticks.  Anything you can do to make that more comfortable is going to be a benefit, Bungie did this with Halo and players have always appeared pretty large on the screen because of this.  Another wonderful side effect is that Halo is basically the only console game I'm aware of where people actively and intentionally go for headshots - that's not a coincidence.  While there are a number of things that can play into that including flinch, gun control, health model, etc.  a huge benefactor is the simple fact that characters in Halo are very large on your screen which is a combination of low FOV and large character models.  Destiny shares this effect thanks to it's stupidly low 60's which I'll agree is too much. Compare this to Titanfall, Battlefield, whatever really, most games make you feel like you're shooting at ants.  I'm not saying I want Halo 3 FoV again, but there are a lot of benefits to dropping it below 100 and locking everyone to an even playing field. 

4: Why is that not a positive.  You can look up players on Quake playing with 360 FoV, or in other words - they're unflankable.  I think we can agree that extreme is not a good thing correct? So there is a degree to which you should be able to be outmaneuvered outside of your FoV.  The smaller the FOV, the better you can use the small scale environment to reposition.  It's just a question as to where to draw that line. There are many times I've rounded a corner in Halo / Destiny just far enough out of their site where I could jump backwards over them without entering their FOV, it's a positional move that would never happen in other titles.
Again, it's a fuzzy line and I'm just saying it's worth considering.

 

"  Most of these points irk me because it seems to only benefit basically no one. Low fov does 3 things. 1, cause motion sickness, 2, irks me because of option 4 because now I can’t kill this guy because he moved a sleight inch off my screen so now he gets to live.  And 3rd it causes sensitivities to feel slow or faster than needed. "

 

I'm going to ignore the bit about motion sickness because that's hardly relevant to anyone anymore-so than high FOV having the same effect.

The second complaint about someone being out of your field of view is going to happen regardless unless you're literally playing on 360 FOV.  How possible it is is entirely dependent on the jump height, movement speed, and field of view.  You might as well cater to skill. Halo 5 has this terrible inverse effect where people essentially bait the back-thrust ninja (which is obnoxious) and even if you know it's coming there's nothing you can do about it because you can't peg your sticks hard enough to reverse your aim before they backsmack you. That's what happens when you have fast movement/ slow console aiming / low fov.  Bad combination in my opinion.  Halo 1-3 don't really have that happen because the movement is fairly paced and predictable; if the field of view was sitting between 90-100 in those games I'd imagine you'd get trapped in a lot of corners or through doorways without any chance of repositioning sometimes because the movement would be too slow for the high FOV.

 

8 hours ago, calberto said:

1) Wouldn't that logic imply that any changeable controlls (bottum layout, sensitivity, Elite Controller, etc) should be axed in favor of an even playing field?

2) I can get behind that idea but still, why not desing a game with a fixed but slightly higher FOV in mind?

1: Button layouts give everyone the same tools, you can just choose how to place them on your remote.  You don't have access to anything anyone else doesn't have in the middle of combat.  Higher FOV doesn't do this, you're basically always trading off ease of aiming for awareness.  This is not a decision that can be actively adjusted or compensated for in a fight, meaning there's no correct solution.  Everyone is winning and losing at different times no matter what they choose.  Not ideal if you ask me. In a perfect world developers would be smart enough to make the best control scheme the default, in Halo this would place something like Bumper Jumper as standard in place of A-Jumping.

 

As for Elite controllers and better peripherals; again a big part of these are accessing tools you already have; only better.  Meaning you're just using the same controls and tools everyone has, but you have access to them in a way that normal controllers can't provide. Ideally the standard controller would have paddles, which won't happen for manufacturing reasons, which would help players play at the level that they're actually capable of reaching within the product when they're not limited by hardware constraints. 

But ultimately yes, it's a paid and direct advantage.  But I as a developer have no control over that so I there's nothing I can do to deal with it, even if I could control that - what would you recommend; detecting advanced peripherals and ignoring inputs from paddles?  All I can control as a developer is my own product and I don't see an issue with providing as controlled of an environment as I could. If it were up to me I wouldn't even have control over advanced aim settings in Halo.   Just a single 1-10 field (which works better when the regular aim settings for the game don't suck). To be honest the idea of paid peripherals like Elite controllers bother me less than an FoV slider in Halo.  With one I know, flat out - I will be better if I get that controller.  There's no question, no ambiguity, no haziness or guessing to it.  With the other, I'm left after every kill whether I would've hit that final shot if I just succumbed to 60 FOV to blow up their character model.  That to me is much more frustrating as its an unsolvable problem.

 

2: Oh you absolutely could, just keep in mind as FOV goes up the depth perception goes down.  I'd imagine general grenade accuracy globally would drop a few percent as it would become more difficult to gauge distance with a ~20 degree FOV jump in Halo.  Character models would be much smaller on your screen so global accuracy would probably drop for weapons on console, less so on PC.  Close quarter combat would "feel" less personal.  Honestly the entire perception of the game would change, and you could dynamically scale the character models to counter a lot of these effects as you feel necessary.  So a higher FOV, but a 1ft growth to your character model might bring back some ease for intentional shot placement, at the cost of perceived speed as your head would be further from the ground.  Just stuff like that to keep in mind.  Checking 90 degree corners would become a no-brainer as you just bury yourself backwards and look dead center between them to catch view of both hallways meaning your personal player awareness wouldn't have to be as high.

 

Thought experiment for everyone in the opposite camp rooting for high FOV - if you spawned into a 1 life mode in any game, Halo or otherwise, and yourself and your entire team would would be forced into a beloved 110 FOV whereas the opponents across the map were forced into 60 FOV (neither team has a choice on their FOV, it's assigned to you on Red vs Blue); would you feel comfortable believing that this was a fair match?  When you lose a gunfight because you left them 1 shot and missed the final bullet and they killed you, and repeated that process for your entire team as each of you lost by 1 bullet - do you still believe that's fair?  Or is there an imbalance because you were forced into a high FOV while they were given low FOV which is favorable for aiming.  If you were on the low FOV team and an enemy began shooting you just outside of your frame of vision thus losing you the fight - was that still a fair fight? Asking questions of the player when there is no context surrounding the question is bad game design in my belief - flat out.  Giving FOV sliders and different aim assist options is like choosing a character at the start of an Overwatch match.  If I choose a Pharah and get sniped immediately by a Widowmaker; would you look at me and say "Yeah man you made the wrong choice" as if there was ever anything to base it off of.  Okay next time I'll choose Genji hoping they choose Widowmaker so I can play as a counter but oh! They didn't! Wrong choice again.  It's a ridiculous idea that I think is plaguing a lot of AAA games right now; don't give me options and ask things of me that I have nothing to base my decision off of.  It's no different than flipping a coin, it's random.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1
  • Heavy Breathing (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 3
  • Thonking (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Apoll0 said:

Reach was clearly some sort of experiment.  "Lets take this beloved franchise with a killer gameplay formula that is getting more popular and fuck with it in very core ways just for funsies."  Fuck you bungie.  Its not hard to fix though.  Playing the MLG v7 settings back to back with the 85% TU settings is a real wake up call.  Bloom and abilities fucks that game over so badly.

 

100% dude, I just got a game of HC Reach and despite how shitty the vanilla game is, when you trim the fat there's a good game underneath it all. Man it feels good to finally have a game on the Xbone with decent hitreg where you can actually outshoot people and there's no ability cancer. I reeeally hope the HC playlist isn't DOA and /or filled with fuckass to4 because I'm gonna grind this

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Basu said:

trim the fat

Base player movement and utility weapon behavior are not the fucking fat.  They are the marrow.  

Wow that’s a long post above.  I should read that.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Base player movement and utility weapon behavior are not the fucking fat.  They are the marrow.  

Wow that’s a long post above.  I should read that.  

I mean yeah, that's a matter of perpective. My point was that unlike H4 and 5 removing all the gimmicky nonsense reveals a good game. Also same haha.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Basu said:

H4 and 5

Parasitic infections.

  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Im in the pro-FoV slider camp for sure and mainly from a comfort/feel point of view, but i dont think you need something that goes from like 60 - 150. I hate playing on low fields of view because it feels so claustrophobic and slow.  I also don't like playing on really high FoV because targets get too small and the world gets distorted.  The problem is the comfort "sweet spot" (for visuals and 'feel') is not the same for everybody or necessarily every game.  But i would bet you would be able to hit the sweet spot for 99% of people if you gave them the option between something like 75 - 100 FoV. Set 90 as the default.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Although that was an interesting read, I still feel player preference and comfort shouldn't be just decided by developers. If you're not giving players an option to play more comfortably due to artistic integrity,  then I think you have a very incorrect line of thinking. Players deserve as much control over their FoV (and controller sensitivities by extension) as possible, barring some extreme cases. There are definite tradeoffs for having a wider FoV versus a lower one (and again, sensitivities by extension), which is why I don't necessarily buy it that a higher FoV is objectively more advantageous.

Honestly, I just want at the very least 90 degrees to be the standard for consoles instead of the narrow cones they force on us. Same with Titanfall/Battlefield level aim settings.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

For the record if it was my call I'd probably choose something between 85-95. It's just worth pointing out the advantages of low fov as its something I despised for years until more recently after giving it some thought. 

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I need to see Infinite gameplay. I need to know if Infinite is something I can even remotely have some sort of hype for in the coming year. I swear I'm getting less enjoyment and more frustration out of all the games I'm currently playing than I ever got out of good Halo games. Overwatch, Rainbow, Apex, etc. They're good games but nothing has ever held my interest like Halo. It seems so weird to me that we're basically a year from launch and all we've seen is a teaser, a few screenshots, and not so much as a second of actual gameplay. We know literally nothing about how the game will play from a practical perspective. A five year Halo drought shouldn't be a thing, and all I want to know is whether or not Infinite is something I should even bank on being remotely similar to the Halo games I fell in love with.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MultiLockOn said:

1: Button layouts give everyone the same tools, you can just choose how to place them on your remote.  You don't have access to anything anyone else doesn't have in the middle of combat.  Higher FOV doesn't do this, you're basically always trading off ease of aiming for awareness.  This is not a decision that can be actively adjusted or compensated for in a fight, meaning there's no correct solution. 

Using buttoms might have been a bad example but, at least to me, having a different FOV is rather similar to having a different sensitivity. In both cases you're trading ease of aim for speed in one case and awareness in the other. To answer your thought experiment, at least for me, this scenario is just as fair/frustrating as having one team with a forced 1-sensitivity vs. one team with a forced 10-sensitivity. But noone complains about a 1-10 sensitivity range.

Don't get me wrong I understand you point of view and I knew about the implications of a high vs. low FOV but I feel like your blowing the consequences a slider would have on the actual "everyday-gameplay" out of proportion a little. I mean even if it's a valid concern, you don't need to have such a huge range you pruposed, being able to choose from 75°-95° might help out a little already.

Quote

2: Oh you absolutely could, just keep in mind as FOV goes up the depth perception goes down.  I'd imagine general grenade accuracy globally would drop a few percent as it would become more difficult to gauge distance with a ~20 degree FOV jump in Halo.  Character models would be much smaller on your screen so global accuracy would probably drop for weapons on console, less so on PC.  Close quarter combat would "feel" less personal.  Honestly the entire perception of the game would change, and you could dynamically scale the character models to counter a lot of these effects as you feel necessary.  So a higher FOV, but a 1ft growth to your character model might bring back some ease for intentional shot placement, at the cost of perceived speed as your head would be further from the ground.  Just stuff like that to keep in mind.  Checking 90 degree corners would become a no-brainer as you just bury yourself backwards and look dead center between them to catch view of both hallways meaning your personal player awareness wouldn't have to be as high.

Again, I get you concern but is there any data supporting the fear that players cannot handle this change? After all it's just a matter of what you're used to. It might be wierd for a couple of games but after that, playing a low FOV should feel off.

As for CQB...does it really feel personal now? There is no real interaction, just a player model and your arms performing a punch. As long as we're keeping this system, there will allways be a "disconnect" and it will never really feel personal. If each melee would trigger a in-depth animation of an actual interaction with the other player modell (basically every melee would trigger a 1st-person assassination-like animation) it might change but that would drastically alter Halos gameplay as well.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Hully said:

I need to see Infinite gameplay. I need to know if Infinite is something I can even remotely have some sort of hype for in the coming year. I swear I'm getting less enjoyment and more frustration out of all the games I'm currently playing than I ever got out of good Halo games. Overwatch, Rainbow, Apex, etc. They're good games but nothing has ever held my interest like Halo. It seems so weird to me that we're basically a year from launch and all we've seen is a teaser, a few screenshots, and not so much as a second of actual gameplay. We know literally nothing about how the game will play from a practical perspective. A five year Halo drought shouldn't be a thing, and all I want to know is whether or not Infinite is something I should even bank on being remotely similar to the Halo games I fell in love with.

Dude, no joke. This wait better be worth it, if it's anything similar to a Halo 5.5 it will be a massive disappointment.

 

I've been pretty much done with Halo for awhile now but could easily become the Halo superfan I once was again if Infinite is good. I just fear there will be sprint and by default be a terrible Halo game.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Calling it: Infinite will have a decent campaign and more traditional art, music, sound design and writing. The MP and core gameplay will be a half-asssed compromise between old and new, still featuring at least sprint/thrust, slide, clamber and probably ADS. Another step in the right direction but ultimately a mediocre experience with weak as shit post-launch support and a forced competitive scene. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Which of these would you have a problem with?

1) Reload is removed.  All weapons generate heat when fired.  The utility weapon generates very little heat while the rocket launcher overheats from two back to back shots.  

2) Advanced movement is moved from base traits to on map pick ups but there are more abilities now.

3) The Sniper Rifle no longer has a second zoom level, only a single zoom 4x scope.  

4) The Plasma Pistol no longer homes but does not need to be charged up either.  

5) Scope is mapped to LT and Melee is mapped to R3.  

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Apoll0 said:

Im in the pro-FoV slider camp for sure and mainly from a comfort/feel point of view, but i dont think you need something that goes from like 60 - 150. I hate playing on low fields of view because it feels so claustrophobic and slow.  I also don't like playing on really high FoV because targets get too small and the world gets distorted.  The problem is the comfort "sweet spot" (for visuals and 'feel') is not the same for everybody or necessarily every game.  But i would bet you would be able to hit the sweet spot for 99% of people if you gave them the option between something like 75 - 100 FoV. Set 90 as the default.

It’s fair to note the most any game gives you is 110, it’s rare AF for games to go further.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Which of these would you have a problem with?

1) Reload is removed.  All weapons generate heat when fired.  The utility weapon generates very little heat while the rocket launcher overheats from two back to back shots.  

2) Advanced movement is moved from base traits to on map pick ups but there are more abilities now.

3) The Sniper Rifle no longer has a second zoom level, only a single zoom 4x scope.  

4) The Plasma Pistol no longer homes but does not need to be charged up either.  

5) Scope is mapped to LT and Melee is mapped to R3.  

2. 
1. Weapons having no reload and instead an overheat feature makes me think of the battlefront games and that’s a feature I greatly dispise. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

Which of these would you have a problem with?

1) Reload is removed.  All weapons generate heat when fired.  The utility weapon generates very little heat while the rocket launcher overheats from two back to back shots.  

2) Advanced movement is moved from base traits to on map pick ups but there are more abilities now.

3) The Sniper Rifle no longer has a second zoom level, only a single zoom 4x scope.  

4) The Plasma Pistol no longer homes but does not need to be charged up either.  

5) Scope is mapped to LT and Melee is mapped to R3.  

2. but depends on what you mean by Advanced Movement. Sprint, wallrun, slide etc. can fuck right off, but something like double-jump or even a loud jetpack with limited fuel could potentially work. The others are fine by me, 1) might be controversial but it basically just turns every weapon into the PR or Beam Rifle which I don't have a problem with personally.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

Which of these would you have a problem with?

1) Reload is removed.  All weapons generate heat when fired.  The utility weapon generates very little heat while the rocket launcher overheats from two back to back shots.  

2) Advanced movement is moved from base traits to on map pick ups but there are more abilities now.

3) The Sniper Rifle no longer has a second zoom level, only a single zoom 4x scope.  

4) The Plasma Pistol no longer homes but does not need to be charged up either.  

5) Scope is mapped to LT and Melee is mapped to R3.  

I’m not sure what the purpose of 5 is. Halo has always had multiple control schemes and even if it didn’t we have the ability to change buttons around via remapping. 

Also how do you get around 1? Does every power weapon just become h2 sword and have infinite ammo? 

2 is the worst offender on the list.

I’d actually like if plasma pistol had less homing on a Spartan and more on vehicles, but still reduced overall. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

Which of these would you have a problem with?

1) Reload is removed.  All weapons generate heat when fired.  The utility weapon generates very little heat while the rocket launcher overheats from two back to back shots.  

2) Advanced movement is moved from base traits to on map pick ups but there are more abilities now.

3) The Sniper Rifle no longer has a second zoom level, only a single zoom 4x scope.  

4) The Plasma Pistol no longer homes but does not need to be charged up either.  

5) Scope is mapped to LT and Melee is mapped to R3.  

1) Why remove reload just to replace it with another mechanic that accomplishes the same exact thing? Either have it or don't.  I'm fine with reloading frankly.

3) But why?

4) See above

5) Are you saying limit the control options to that or make that default? It should be an option but not default.  RS zoom is fine for default.  What they need to change is to stop putting secondary functions on the bumpers for the default setting.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Basu said:

what you mean by Advanced Movement.

Gravity Boots and Gravity Grapple (Jump Boots and a Grappling Gun) would be one.  Translocator and Portal Gun would be others.  

1 hour ago, Basu said:

a loud jetpack with limited fuel

I would be more inclined to give the Jetpack slowly recharging fuel so that a player can use it to gain position, slay for a while, then move on and use it again.

1 hour ago, Nokt said:

Also how do you get around 1? Does every power weapon just become h2 sword and have infinite ammo? 

Just because a weapon no longer has to reload does not mean it has unlimited ammo.  The Beam Rifle never has to reload but it still has limited ammo.  

1 hour ago, Nokt said:

I’d actually like if plasma pistol had less homing on a Spartan and more on vehicles, but still reduced overall. 

How would you feel if the Plasma Pistol was normally an 11sk semi auto/non homing EMP Bolt but with the Power Glove pick up active it is an automatic, homing 11sk/homing EMP Bolt (the Power Glove enhances the player’s weapon for 10 seconds, 30 second recharge)?  

1 hour ago, Nokt said:

2 is the worst offender on the list.

How so?

1 hour ago, Apoll0 said:

1) Why remove reload just to replace it with another mechanic that accomplishes the same exact thing? Either have it or don't.  I'm fine with reloading frankly.

Removing reload frees up a button so that Armor Abilities can use two buttons.  Items like the Translocator and Portal Gun are possible when two buttons are available.  

1 hour ago, Apoll0 said:

3) But why?

Weapons without scopes use the Scope button as an Alt Fire button.  Alt Fire on R3 doesn’t really make sense.  Alt Fire on LT does make sense.  Since a Sniper Rifle uses LT to zoom, the default behavior would be Hold LT to zoom and Release LT to unzoom.  You can’t zoom in a second time when the trigger is already held down.  

1 hour ago, Apoll0 said:

4) See above

An EMP Bolt is already strong, removing OS and stunning vehicles.  It doesn’t need to home as well.  Make players land their shots, don’t have the game do it for them.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

44 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Removing reload frees up a button so that Armor Abilities can use two buttons.  Items like the Translocator and Portal Gun are possible when two buttons are available.  

Why would we want to enable the use of MORE armor abilities? Those 2 examples are already possible with just one button.  Source/Destination = First Click/Last Click. Halo needs to be less complicated, not more.

44 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Weapons without scopes use the Scope button as an Alt Fire button.  Alt Fire on R3 doesn’t really make sense.  Alt Fire on LT does make sense.  Since a Sniper Rifle uses LT to zoom, the default behavior would be Hold LT to zoom and Release LT to unzoom.  You can’t zoom in a second time when the trigger is already held down.  

Sniper doesn't need an alt fire and the second zoom level isn't one... so i don't see why putting a non-alt-fire option on a non-alt-fire button doesn't make sense?  Also, any weapon that makes sense to have an alt fire doesn't need to use the same button as long as the implementation is intuitive.  Example. Reach grenade launcher.  Tap the trigger and it explodes after a bounce.  Hold the trigger and it explodes when you release.

44 minutes ago, Boyo said:

An EMP Bolt is already strong, removing OS and stunning vehicles.  It doesn’t need to home as well.  Make players land their shots, don’t have the game do it for them.  

 

It was fine until they decided to give it a 40x scope and let it home clear across the map. You don't need to take the homing away, just make it reasonable.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Apoll0 said:

Why would we want to enable the use of MORE armor abilities? 

Not necessarily more abilities, just more finely controlled abilities.  

13 minutes ago, Apoll0 said:

Those 2 examples are already possible with just one button. 

So if your Translocator lands somewhere you didn’t intend, you’re just fucked then and can’t use it anymore?  Translocator requires two buttons to function.  Fire/Recall and Teleport.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

Not necessarily more abilities, just more finely controlled abilities.  

1 hour ago, Apoll0 said:

I want less abilities so this isn't comforting lol.

1 hour ago, Boyo said:

So if your Translocator lands somewhere you didn’t intend, you’re just fucked then and can’t use it anymore?  Translocator requires two buttons to function.  Fire/Recall and Teleport.  

Yes.  Aim better next time.

Share this post


Link to post

You know I could be ok with sprint only if sprint is only useable when at full shields. 

  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Arlong said:

You know I could be ok with sprint only if sprint is only useable when at full shields. 

That would be beyond clunky. Just rip the band aid off, take out sprint and up the movement speed. So many years of development and money wasted tinkering with a mechanic that just doesn’t work. 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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