That looks pretty badass but also may get pretty annoying.
Yeah, depending on how it gets balanced, it could get super annoying. By the way, prepare for all the "Thruster Pack Is Overpowered" sentiment. It's probably warranted, though.
Ok. And it doesn't give you a temp state of invulnerability right? Seems basically like a dinosaur roll from Reach and I know you can kill dinos while they're mid tumble.
edit. Also is it a fixed strafe distance or can you control how far you move?
No invulnerability during thruster burst. And it has a fixed distance, but you can extend the range forward by jumping then thrusting. Just not by much.
All this does is further draw out encounter times. I don't like it at the moment. Take it down to four shots for a kill, it may have a place.
If the Thruster is an all-or-nothing proposition, I think it might have a place. Either you use it to get that last bullet or two you need in, or you're completely exposed sounds like a decent balance to it. But yeah, encounter times are growing. What was wrong with four shot kills?
All this does is further draw out encounter times. I don't like it at the moment. Take it down to four shots for a kill, it may have a place.
If the Thruster is an all-or-nothing proposition, I think it might have a place. Either you use it to get that last bullet or two you need in, or you're completely exposed sounds like a decent balance to it. But yeah, encounter times are growing. What was wrong with four shot kills?
Did you see my post about shooting while Thrusting? I can't confirm Thrust is all or nothing but I think I read it is.
Four shot kills are good for experienced players in a more competitive environment. Inexperienced players barely know they are getting shot or from where and then they are dead. The shorter time from first shot to kill, the quicker you will see a noob exit MM. We (all of us, experienced and competitive) cannot afford to have new players exit the game after a few trial runs.
Of course new players shouldn't get matched with experienced and high skilled players but until it stops being a common occurrence, expect longer kill times. Certainly I need longer kill times because of lack of host and latency I don't even get to feel all of the shots and then I die. Or so it seems.
All this does is further draw out encounter times. I don't like it at the moment. Take it down to four shots for a kill, it may have a place.
If the Thruster is an all-or-nothing proposition, I think it might have a place. Either you use it to get that last bullet or two you need in, or you're completely exposed sounds like a decent balance to it. But yeah, encounter times are growing. What was wrong with four shot kills?
Did you see my post about shooting while Thrusting? I can't confirm Thrust is all or nothing but I think I read it is.
Four shot kills are good for experienced players in a more competitive environment. Inexperienced players barely know they are getting shot or from where and then they are dead. The shorter time from first shot to kill, the quicker you will see a noob exit MM. We (all of us, experienced and competitive) cannot afford to have new players exit the game after a few trial runs.
Of course new players shouldn't get matched with experienced and high skilled players but until it stops being a common occurrence, expect longer kill times. Certainly I need longer kill times because of lack of host and latency I don't even get to feel all of the shots and then I die. Or so it seems.
I can get behind you with three shot kills, but four was the crutch from three. Now five is better? If kill times are all about accessibility, then how come Call Of Duty and Battlefield, with virtually zero encounter time are played more these days?
Longer encounter times aren't going to make bad players better. I'd posit that a less skilled players is dis-served by longer encounter times becauseskill has to be maintained for a longer period of time. A bad player isn't going to scuffle for a three or four shot kill, but automagically turn into a good player with a five shot kill.
Longer encounter times aren't going to make bad players better. I'd posit that a less skilled players is dis-served by longer encounter times becauseskill has to be maintained for a longer period of time. A bad player isn't going to scuffle for a three or four shot kill, but automagically turn into a good player with a five shot kill.
It's more about frustration I think. Bad players can get better if they play longer. If they can build some confidence then they are off to the races. Gotta hold them long enough to find their legs.
I can't speak much to COD. So many variables. Why someone would stay and play COD under exactly the same circumstances as Halo, I don't know.
Just going with what 343i says. It's hard to retain new players. New players won't stay long if they are dead most of the time.
I wish there was some kind of decaying handicap for them that couldn't be boosted. Perhaps it should be that experienced players fear a handicapped new player.
Longer encounter times aren't going to make bad players better. I'd posit that a less skilled players is dis-served by longer encounter times becauseskill has to be maintained for a longer period of time. A bad player isn't going to scuffle for a three or four shot kill, but automagically turn into a good player with a five shot kill.
It's more about frustration I think. Bad players can get better if they play longer. If they can build some confidence then they are off to the races. Gotta hold them long enough to find their legs.
I can't speak much to COD. So many variables. Why someone would stay and play COD under exactly the same circumstances as Halo, I don't know.
Just going with what 343i says. It's hard to retain new players. New players won't stay long if they are dead most of the time.
I wish there was some kind of decaying handicap for them that couldn't be boosted. Perhaps it should be that experienced players fear a handicapped new player.
Who needs a handicapped new player? That's what a ranking system is for. You keep bringing up problems in search of a solution. The game is good enough to stand on its own. When the game itself started changing, you saw interest dropping. It could be fatigue, but it could also be degradation of core gameplay. Although I appreciate the fact that map remakes aren't going to be as pushed this time around, there's something to be said for being able to push the engine, mechanics, and gameplay tweaks across some maps to see if the game still holds up. All boards, as we know them, are going to be made bigger, to accomodate the standard Sprint Armor Ability (or you could just increase the base player movement speed, not have sprint, and save a button, but I digress). That won't be much a problem if the weapons hit where you're aiming them. That wasn't a problem in Halo 2, wasn't much of a problem with Halo 3, or nothing that leading your target couldn't fix, but it was a problem in Reach because of the bloom mechanic.
Lanierb, as much as I hate to say it, this game isn't for people like you and me any more. We're going to buy it, try it out, and see how it feels. If it's Reach 2.0, we get to either hope Halo 5 doesn't suck or abandon the franchise totally.
Who needs a handicapped new player? That's what a ranking system is for. You keep bringing up problems in search of a solution.
Lanierb, as much as I hate to say it, this game isn't for people like you and me any more. We're going to buy it, try it out, and see how it feels. If it's Reach 2.0, we get to either hope Halo 5 doesn't suck or abandon the franchise totally.
The handicap idea just popped into my head. I've heard of it before.
Solutions in search of a problem, is that what you meant? It is generally accepted the current Trueskill + MM system are resulting in too many bad matches. The skills are wildly variable. 343i is going to try something new but what if it doesn't work any better? What solution could be added to Halo 5?
I believe there is still hope for you guys to enjoy Halo 4. As you've seen from the stuff I've posted, many in the competitive community are enthusiastic about what they are seeing for Halo 4. I'd say it is guarded enthusiasm but that's still positive.
Who needs a handicapped new player? That's what a ranking system is for. You keep bringing up problems in search of a solution.
Lanierb, as much as I hate to say it, this game isn't for people like you and me any more. We're going to buy it, try it out, and see how it feels. If it's Reach 2.0, we get to either hope Halo 5 doesn't suck or abandon the franchise totally.
The handicap idea just popped into my head. I've heard of it before.
Solutions in search of a problem, is that what you meant? It is generally accepted the current Trueskill + MM system are resulting in too many bad matches. The skills are wildly variable. 343i is going to try something new but what if it doesn't work any better? What solution could be added to Halo 5?
I believe there is still hope for you guys to enjoy Halo 4. As you've seen from the stuff I've posted, many in the competitive community are enthusiastic about what they are seeing for Halo 4. I'd say it is guarded enthusiasm but that's still positive.
No, I meant it the other way. We've had ranking numbers, we've had TrueSkill. We don't need other metrics. We just need to refine what we have and move on. We had the rankings in Halo 3, then, pretty late in the game's life, they threw in the secondary rankings that you'd get if you just finished games. You know, the completely useless ranking stuff. Arena is a nice idea, but it fell flat in exercise. It shouldn't be so damned hard. I'd like to think that 343 can make something work. After all, other games have perfectly robust ranking systems, and, hell, even with its warts, I'd much rather have the Halo 3 ranking system back in its entirety.
Believe me, a lot of us competitive assholes on this forum are looking forward to Halo 4, just so we can forget about Reach. I can't wait to trade Reach in for Halo 4 and never touch that game again. Unfortunately, there's a lot fo stuff that seems to have been introduced to not make that nightmare readily forgettable. The only aces in the hole we have are Forge and the base customizability of the game, which are the pillars that we've been fixing and refining the base Halo game on for three titles now.
Four shot kills are good for experienced players in a more competitive environment. Inexperienced players barely know they are getting shot or from where and then they are dead. The shorter time from first shot to kill, the quicker you will see a noob exit MM. We (all of us, experienced and competitive) cannot afford to have new players exit the game after a few trial runs.
This is complete BS. They dumbed down Halo for the n00bs and look what happened. Everyone left. In fact I think the n00bs were the first to go. All that's left is competitive players and die-hards. Four shot kills make the game more exciting and everyone, even the n00bs, like an exciting game better than a boring one. The only people who like the dumbed down game are people who've played for years and still suck.
Four shot kills are good for experienced players in a more competitive environment. Inexperienced players barely know they are getting shot or from where and then they are dead. The shorter time from first shot to kill, the quicker you will see a noob exit MM. We (all of us, experienced and competitive) cannot afford to have new players exit the game after a few trial runs.
This is complete BS. They dumbed down Halo for the n00bs and look what happened. Everyone left. In fact I think the n00bs were the first to go. All that's left is competitive players and die-hards. Four shot kills make the game more exciting and everyone, even the n00bs, like an exciting game better than a boring one.
If that is truly the case then Halo 4 will bomb even worse than REACH. Bomb being a relative term since REACH has done well but not as well as expected nor as well as Halo 3. Pretty much everything that was in REACH is in Halo 4.
lanierb wrote:
The only people who like the dumbed down game are people who've played for years and still suck.
The video I've seen of the Thruster Pack shows it draining after one use and with no firing. Basically you lower your weapon like with Sprint and boost in the specified direction.
Its hard to say if a 4 shot kill will be better than a 5 shot kill. The DMR is an easy 5 shot kill at range and if the BR is accurate like that at close and mid range kill times will be pretty fast. H3 BR was a 4 shot kill, but that was really rare for most players. The AAs over all worry me alittle because it do seem like overkill, but with the BR back and the mechanics more like H3 I'm pretty pumped and I do consider myself a competitive player.
Being honest here in my opinion. Extending kill times to give a shitty player a chance at killing a better player is f'ing retarded logic. I totally suck at COD and I know I'll get ass whopped. I don't want more gimmicks to help me out. If I truly enjoyed a MM game, I'd play it more often hoping I could learn its mechanics and better my skill at it so I wouldn't SUCK! I don't play nearly as much as I used to and my skill has declined. It just takes time invested to become better. Not gimmicks. I'll suck at H4 when it first gets released, but should improve with time invested. Unless the game turns out to be a Noob Gimmick MF'er and I'll return it and focus on knitting instead. I guess everyone's a winner these days regardless.
That looks pretty badass but also may get pretty annoying.
Yeah, depending on how it gets balanced, it could get super annoying. By the way, prepare for all the "Thruster Pack Is Overpowered" sentiment. It's probably warranted, though.
Hold your horses just for a bit boys. I read something from David Ellis regarding this on NeoGAF. Unfortunately it's down ATM.
Will get back to you.
No shooting while Thrusting according to this.
David Ellis 7.16.12
All this does is further draw out encounter times. I don't like it at the moment. Take it down to four shots for a kill, it may have a place.
If the Thruster is an all-or-nothing proposition, I think it might have a place. Either you use it to get that last bullet or two you need in, or you're completely exposed sounds like a decent balance to it. But yeah, encounter times are growing. What was wrong with four shot kills?
Four shot kills are good for experienced players in a more competitive environment. Inexperienced players barely know they are getting shot or from where and then they are dead. The shorter time from first shot to kill, the quicker you will see a noob exit MM. We (all of us, experienced and competitive) cannot afford to have new players exit the game after a few trial runs.
Of course new players shouldn't get matched with experienced and high skilled players but until it stops being a common occurrence, expect longer kill times. Certainly I need longer kill times because of lack of host and latency I don't even get to feel all of the shots and then I die. Or so it seems.
I can get behind you with three shot kills, but four was the crutch from three. Now five is better? If kill times are all about accessibility, then how come Call Of Duty and Battlefield, with virtually zero encounter time are played more these days?
Longer encounter times aren't going to make bad players better. I'd posit that a less skilled players is dis-served by longer encounter times becauseskill has to be maintained for a longer period of time. A bad player isn't going to scuffle for a three or four shot kill, but automagically turn into a good player with a five shot kill.
I can't speak much to COD. So many variables. Why someone would stay and play COD under exactly the same circumstances as Halo, I don't know.
Just going with what 343i says. It's hard to retain new players. New players won't stay long if they are dead most of the time.
I wish there was some kind of decaying handicap for them that couldn't be boosted. Perhaps it should be that experienced players fear a handicapped new player.
Who needs a handicapped new player? That's what a ranking system is for. You keep bringing up problems in search of a solution. The game is good enough to stand on its own. When the game itself started changing, you saw interest dropping. It could be fatigue, but it could also be degradation of core gameplay. Although I appreciate the fact that map remakes aren't going to be as pushed this time around, there's something to be said for being able to push the engine, mechanics, and gameplay tweaks across some maps to see if the game still holds up. All boards, as we know them, are going to be made bigger, to accomodate the standard Sprint Armor Ability (or you could just increase the base player movement speed, not have sprint, and save a button, but I digress). That won't be much a problem if the weapons hit where you're aiming them. That wasn't a problem in Halo 2, wasn't much of a problem with Halo 3, or nothing that leading your target couldn't fix, but it was a problem in Reach because of the bloom mechanic.
Lanierb, as much as I hate to say it, this game isn't for people like you and me any more. We're going to buy it, try it out, and see how it feels. If it's Reach 2.0, we get to either hope Halo 5 doesn't suck or abandon the franchise totally.
Solutions in search of a problem, is that what you meant? It is generally accepted the current Trueskill + MM system are resulting in too many bad matches. The skills are wildly variable. 343i is going to try something new but what if it doesn't work any better? What solution could be added to Halo 5?
I believe there is still hope for you guys to enjoy Halo 4. As you've seen from the stuff I've posted, many in the competitive community are enthusiastic about what they are seeing for Halo 4. I'd say it is guarded enthusiasm but that's still positive.
No, I meant it the other way. We've had ranking numbers, we've had TrueSkill. We don't need other metrics. We just need to refine what we have and move on. We had the rankings in Halo 3, then, pretty late in the game's life, they threw in the secondary rankings that you'd get if you just finished games. You know, the completely useless ranking stuff. Arena is a nice idea, but it fell flat in exercise. It shouldn't be so damned hard. I'd like to think that 343 can make something work. After all, other games have perfectly robust ranking systems, and, hell, even with its warts, I'd much rather have the Halo 3 ranking system back in its entirety.
Believe me, a lot of us competitive assholes on this forum are looking forward to Halo 4, just so we can forget about Reach. I can't wait to trade Reach in for Halo 4 and never touch that game again. Unfortunately, there's a lot fo stuff that seems to have been introduced to not make that nightmare readily forgettable. The only aces in the hole we have are Forge and the base customizability of the game, which are the pillars that we've been fixing and refining the base Halo game on for three titles now.
...And probably soon to be four.
This is complete BS. They dumbed down Halo for the n00bs and look what happened. Everyone left. In fact I think the n00bs were the first to go. All that's left is competitive players and die-hards. Four shot kills make the game more exciting and everyone, even the n00bs, like an exciting game better than a boring one. The only people who like the dumbed down game are people who've played for years and still suck.
Ha! You must be talking about me.[/quote]
Me too! I'm sorry some of us don't have crazy, L33T videogame skillz and ruin the game for others.
Me too! I'm sorry some of us don't have crazy, L33T videogame skillz and ruin the game for others.
[/quote]
Gosh! Drink moar Game Fuel, noob. Also, freebasing Adderall helps.
Me too! I'm sorry some of us don't have crazy, L33T videogame skillz and ruin the game for others.
[/quote]
That's why I always play with the clannies, becauses even if you suck you can teamshoot the crap out of anybody who isn't a lagasaurus.
Someone on HBO who was at RTX or SDCC said the Thruster completely drains on each use.
That makes sense. If it didn't drain on one button press, it'd be another form of locomotion, then.
The video I've seen of the Thruster Pack shows it draining after one use and with no firing. Basically you lower your weapon like with Sprint and boost in the specified direction.
Its hard to say if a 4 shot kill will be better than a 5 shot kill. The DMR is an easy 5 shot kill at range and if the BR is accurate like that at close and mid range kill times will be pretty fast. H3 BR was a 4 shot kill, but that was really rare for most players. The AAs over all worry me alittle because it do seem like overkill, but with the BR back and the mechanics more like H3 I'm pretty pumped and I do consider myself a competitive player.
Being honest here in my opinion. Extending kill times to give a shitty player a chance at killing a better player is f'ing retarded logic. I totally suck at COD and I know I'll get ass whopped. I don't want more gimmicks to help me out. If I truly enjoyed a MM game, I'd play it more often hoping I could learn its mechanics and better my skill at it so I wouldn't SUCK! I don't play nearly as much as I used to and my skill has declined. It just takes time invested to become better. Not gimmicks. I'll suck at H4 when it first gets released, but should improve with time invested. Unless the game turns out to be a Noob Gimmick MF'er and I'll return it and focus on knitting instead. I guess everyone's a winner these days regardless.
IXI MlG kNiTz IXI
ROFL! Most gamers I've encountered in Reach MM with MLG or Pro in their GT's suck so this makes sense!
I blame bumper bowling.
damn noobs! lol are you guys 15?
He has me beat by about 11 and a half inches, then.
WINNER!