What's An Unpopular Halo Opinion You Have?

[TiberiusAudley]

Edit; Also happens often you can survive a 3 shot beat down from a br if you snipe/mauler+beat down someone, you trade beatdowns but for some reason you can even be on 1/10th shield and go one shot from a beat down. When your shield comes back, you are very likely do die in one nade/one sniper bullet.

 

From the same source as I linked in the post I made after the one you quoted...

 

 

 

When entering a melee contest, the combined body and shield hit points are compared. If the difference is above a threshold, then one player is determined to have won decisively and is protected from death. After testing with a variety of weapons, we settled on a threshold of 26.5 hit points (slightly rounded.) This translates into 4+ AR bullets worth of damage to decisively win a melee contest, instead of simply having 1 more hit point than the other guy.

[Gobias]

No -- the reticule shrinks and makes your gun shoot -more- precisely (but, if you're trying to hit a specific target, it may actually be less accurate, since if you aren't pixel-perfect accurate, you will miss.)

 

Think of it this way (which is how it would be explained in game)...Your gun has an onboard computer that helps you hit targets.  As you fire faster, the computer can't keep up, and its ability to assist is reduced.  If you fire as fast as the gun can fire, you're relying strictly on your own aim, rather than the aim assist.

 

 

Rather than TRAJECTORY bloom, it's AIM ASSIST bloom.  I mean, it's not like a man who can FLIP A GODDAMN ELEPHANT has gun recoil, so trajectory bloom and bullet spread don't make much sense.

Yes, I got the part where aim assist decreases. That's definitely original.  But it seems to me (maybe I'm confused) that the gun starts off with more spread and more aim assist.  Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather the gun shoot straight all the time and have aim assist depend only on range (and be relatively low).  I also disagree with the point that a perfectly accurate weapon can potentially be more difficult that a weapon with slight random spread.  Difficulty is difficulty, randomness is randomness.

 

Anyway, that's just my perspective, but you have some interesting ideas.  You're right that bloom and spread have no place, however, I think that constantly changing values of aim assist and spread would be annoying after a while, even though I'm all for more difficult aiming.

[Hard Way]

Yes, I got the part where aim assist decreases. That's definitely original.  But it seems to me (maybe I'm confused) that the gun starts off with more spread and more aim assist.  Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather the gun shoot straight all the time and have aim assist depend only on range (and be relatively low).  I also disagree with the point that a perfectly accurate weapon can potentially be more difficult that a weapon with slight random spread.  Difficulty is difficulty, randomness is randomness.

 

Anyway, that's just my perspective, but you have some interesting ideas.  You're right that bloom and spread have no place, however, I think that constantly changing values of aim assist and spread would be annoying after a while, even though I'm all for more difficult aiming.

 

I don't think he's advocating varying amounts of "sticky aim".  That'd be unintuitive and frustrating.  I think the player would keep the same "sticky aim" regardless of reticle size, as long as the reticle is still on the player.

 

My interpretation is that the reticle starts out big, but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate like the shotgun.  It means that anything in the circle will die, and it will prioritize headshots, presumably.  Rainbow Six 3 did exactly this on the original Xbox.  As rate of fire increased, that zone shrinks, and the player must be even more pinpoint accurate to get what he wants.  It becomes even more difficult because as the reticle gets smaller, it is easier to slip off the player model, which would lose sticky aim.  I love the idea.

 

The only issue then becomes, what do you do with the sniper and shotgun reticles?

 

Tiberius, let me know if I'm interpreting you right.

[TiberiusAudley]

Yes, I got the part where aim assist decreases. That's definitely original.  But it seems to me (maybe I'm confused) that the gun starts off with more spread and more aim assist.  Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather the gun shoot straight all the time and have aim assist depend only on range (and be relatively low).  I also disagree with the point that a perfectly accurate weapon can potentially be more difficult that a weapon with slight random spread.  Difficulty is difficulty, randomness is randomness.

 

Anyway, that's just my perspective, but you have some interesting ideas.  You're right that bloom and spread have no place, however, I think that constantly changing values of aim assist and spread would be annoying after a while, even though I'm all for more difficult aiming.

 

The gun would have no spread, period.  Spread is dumb.  Random trajectory is bad (for games, where we can design things in vacuums). The red reticule aim assist would still be dependent upon range -- Pistols would be shorter range than say, carbines (BR+Carbine), which would be shorter than DMRs (DMR/LR, if such weapons persist.)  However, firing faster would reduce the amount of aim assist you get -- less reticule there to overlap, means if you're trying to shoot a moving target, you have to be more precise with your thumbs/joysticks to get it where you need to be to land the shots.  If you fire at max RoF, you have to be pixel-perfect accurate on the 3rd/4th shots to land them.  If you're aimed over the shoulder, where a reticule circle would normally be over half full (of the head and shoulder, respectively), you won't get the usual "hey this shot landed somehow hahaha" that console shooters like to give.  Whereas, if you fired at the reset pace, that shot WOULD land.

 

I don't think he's advocating varying amounts of "sticky aim".  That'd be unintuitive and frustrating.  I think the player would keep the same "sticky aim" regardless of reticle size, as long as the reticle is still on the player.

 

My interpretation is that the reticle starts out big, but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate like the shotgun.  It means that anything in the circle will die, and it will prioritize headshots, presumably.  Rainbow Six 3 did exactly this on the original Xbox.  As rate of fire increased, that zone shrinks, and the player must be even more pinpoint accurate to get what he wants.  It becomes even more difficult because as the reticle gets smaller, it is easier to slip off the player model, which would lose sticky aim.  I love the idea.

 

The only issue then becomes, what do you do with the sniper and shotgun reticles?

 

Tiberius, let me know if I'm interpreting you right.

 

The "large" reticule (by this, I mean, imagine a default BR or DMR reticule) means, if a target takes up more than a certain % of the reticule, and you're in red reticule range, your shot hits.  As you fire max RoF, the reticule shrinks so you have to aim more accurately to have the same precision (if you're aiming by an arm, or over the shoulder, or if you're just not keeping up with their movements well enough).

 

I actually don't mean sticky aim that much (though, it would decrease) -- I was referring to bullet curvature where the bullet actually curves to hit your target when you aim "close enough" (Fucking DMRs man) -- but that curvature would disappear completely at max RoF.  So people like me who can't aim for shit can still use a workaround to land our shots, but people like Pistola or Roy or APG who are better than me can fire faster and kill me if we got into a gun battle and they saw me quickly enough.

 

 

Regarding the Sniper... It shouldn't be affected by any sort of multiple-shots-fired mechanic unless you're introducing scout rifles into Halo.  You hit where you fucking aim.

 

Regarding a Shotgun... I hate to say it but Shotguns kinda should have random spread -- just not as ridiculous/blatant as the Scattershot. I'd like to see something along the lines of having crouched shots tighten the spread so you can crouch+fire to temporarily increase the effective range of a Shotgun.  (But that leads to muddy situations where crouch-camping around corners with radar on in default settings is even stronger, so it's not a great idea either way you slice it.)

[HuStLeR]

Button glitches add skill and depth to the game.

 

One person" if actually good enough" should be able to carry a team.

 

Halo 3 is the worst Halo and I get sad thinking about it.

 

The waiting to pick up over shield in h3 is stupid along with be spread, bullet refund, and trading melees? Spare me.

 

H4 without sprint and better maps could have been pretty awesome.

 

Not sure if these are unpopular but just my thoughts.

[Albinoceros]

I like the Extraction gametype more than any other gametype besides maybe Flag. It would've been great in not H4.

[Hard Way]

The Reach custom powerup would have been better than OS if it didn't slow your shield recharge speed. Punishment for earning powerups. So dumb.

[elitenoob94]

 

As for my unpopular opinions (I'm ready for the backlash):

 

• MLG Columbus '12 proved to me that Reach v7 could be as good as Halo 2 (not saying it was or is, just that it had the potential to be).
• Pistola is the GOAT, not Ogre 2, and has been since maybe the final year of Reach.
• Ogre 1 was better than Ogre 2 in H1 & H2.
• Epitaph with the Shield Doors removed was a good map.
• Powerhouse was a great map, and the best map in Reach.

 

This, I totally agree. 

 

OT:

 

I think Team Action Sack in H4 is a pretty good playlist. 

[Warlord Wossman]

Aiming isn't that huge of a factor when you want to know if someone is a good halo player. (I think here it is not that unpopular, more in the casual scene)

[Gobias]

COD ruined Halo.

COD ruined COD.

[natsu]

The Reach custom powerup would have been better than OS if it didn't slow your shield recharge speed. Punishment for earning powerups. So dumb.

i don't see anything wrong with that if the powerup given is extremely powerful, something that provides a big boost needs to have a downside to balance it out otherwise it just becomes to unfair because a power up isn't something that still requires effort and skill to keep a hold of and use, once you touch it you're given it for its duration so with no downsides on something that's powerful isn't balanced.

 

if its a more minor boost then i agree.

[Hard Way]

i don't see anything wrong with that if the powerup given is extremely powerful, something that provides a big boost needs to have a downside to balance it out otherwise it just becomes to unfair because a power up isn't something that still requires effort and skill to keep a hold of and use, once you touch it you're given it for its duration so with no downsides on something that's powerful isn't balanced.

 

if its a more minor boost then i agree.

I disagree, but I see where your coming from.  However, it doesn't apply in this scenario.  The v7 OS isn't even that powerful.  It buys you like 3 extra shots...

[natsu]

I disagree, but I see where your coming from.  However, it doesn't apply in this scenario.  The v7 OS isn't even that powerful.  It buys you like 3 extra shots...

oh well then that doesn't need a something that balance it out at all, sounds kind of pointless TBH.

[Oh So Laggy]

...I want Reach to be in MCC...

 

(v7 was the shit)

[Hard Way]

oh well then that doesn't need a something that balance it out at all, sounds kind of pointless TBH.

It kinda was.  Like, it was nice to have, but your shields came back slower, so if you got weak you were boned.  And for that reason, you still didn't want to grab it if you were weak, just like H3.  smh

 

If your shields didn't come back slower, it would have been a great powerup, bc it offered you a significant advantage that you could reuse if you played smart.  I mean, it only lasted for like a minute I think.

[MrGreenWithAGun]

...I want Reach to be in MCC...

 

(v7 was the shit)

...I want Reach to be in MCC...

 

(invasion was the shit)

[Rolex]

Does anybody know why if you picked up OS in H3 you were invincible until it fully generated, but in MLG you could burn custom OS? I highly doubt you could set that in the custom games lobby or custom powerup traits. If you can, I don't know why you would ever make it like it was in default settings. Pit and Guardian were the biggest fuck you's ever in that sense. 

 

This might be another unpopular opinion of mine. 

[SecretSchnitzel]

The Custom Powerup in H3 MLG settings was vastly underpowered...

[Lux]

Not really an unpopular opinion, but someone mentioned that BR spread adds an interesting aspect to combat. It forces you to keep your reticle perfectly centred on the enemy, which is definitely a unique and occasionally fun aspect to the gameplay. I'd argue that it even rewards you when you put a lot of focus on your aim. That said, it's still shit.

[Hard Way]

Not really an unpopular opinion, but someone mentioned that BR spread adds an interesting aspect to combat. It forces you to keep your reticle perfectly centred on the enemy, which is definitely a unique and occasionally fun aspect to the gameplay. I'd argue that it even rewards you when you put a lot of focus on your aim. That said, it's still shit.

It'd be a lot easier to appreciate that if when my bullets did hit, they fucking counted.

[stylo90]

Regarding Halo 3 health...

 

 

Source: http://halo.bungie.net/news/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=13280  (I found that when I was talking about the Brute Shot in my last Audley Enough and bitching about how its melee didn't DO anything special like H2's did where you could jump one-shot someone with the melee.  Fuckin' 72 damage.  TWO EXTRA POINTS OF DAMAGE FROM THAT BIG ASS FUCKING BLADE.  gj Bungie.

 

(But basically, you regenerated 20% of your health per second over 5 seconds.  Max health was 45, regenerated 9/sec AFTER 10 seconds.)

 

+rep for digging that post out of the archives. Someone needs to make a database of this info, for each of the games.

[Jay]

From the same source as I linked in the post I made after the one you quoted...

My post was from knowing by experience, not looking anything up or testing anything in custom games.

[ReFlexxx]

 

Here's mine:

• Standoffs between teams like on Lockout are both intense and fun to watch (most of the time)

 

 

Here's mine:

• Halo Reach ZBNS is amazing and a lot better than both Halo 3 and Halo 4
• The Reach campaign is absolutely amazing and easily one of the best in the series
• I like Halo CE more for its campaign than its multiplayer
• Skyline is way overrated
• Halo CE was competitive purely by accident, and not because Bungie intended it to be and designed it that way
• Standoffs between teams like on Lockout are both intense and fun to watch (most of the time)
• Salot's Lockout remake was great and we should have kept it in the competitive settings
• It was also my favorite map (Forge and non Forge) to play in Halo 4 until Onyx came out
• I'm a big proponent of using Forge remakes for competitive settings, we should do it a lot more often
• The Crimson Map Pack was great and had some of the best BTB maps ever (Shatter and Wreckage)
• Team Snipers is competitively viable
• Isolation was a good and fun map

 

100% agree with your point about standoffs. Some of the best MLG tournamnet moments were 45-45 standoffs on PIT TS and it took strategy and the right decision to push. Made epic last minutes of gameplay and took patience.

[ThatTrueLegend]

I like Amplified TS.

 

I hate Heretic. (probably Becuase im just bad at it lol)

[bluejay]

I hate Heretic. (probably Becuase im just bad at it lol)

the motivation behind most opinions frankly, its the reason I enjoy lockout, about the only map I have a good understanding of (which is sad seeing as how I didn't even play halo 2 MP)

 

no opinion is truly objective no matter how much people may pretend it is, some things are more subjective than others, however at the end of the day people's personal tastes and interests almost always hold out of what it true or false.