RedStarRocket91

Why not just bring them both back? Make the bullet spread on the Battle Rifle larger so it's moderately less accurate at medium-long range, decrease the rate of fire on the DMR or add recoil to it, and you instantly have two weapons which fill different roles and can thus co-exist.

This may go down in history as the shortest thread ever.

Even then, spamming the trigger won't help if you're not accurate to begin with - it's not like regular combat where bloom works because you can't get one-hit-kills and thus need to time your shots. In normal combat the reason shots are timed is so that once Shields pop, the weapon is still accurate enough to land a headshot. SWAT has always been about raw precision, and when a single hit can kill every individual fight should be on an even basis, regardless of whether the combatants have just killed three enemies or none.

I completely misread that and thought you wanted 'Uncaged' back in Halo 4! I've never been so happy to be wrong about something! Agreed with Firedune though, all new maps would be better for an all new trilogy. Reach showed all too clearly what can happen when the emphasis is on remakes, even if 343i did a fantastic job on the Anniversary Map Pack. I would really like to see more dedicated Forge spaces, although it wouldn't be the end of the world if there weren't any. Other than that, a good variety of small-medium asymmetric maps for Free-For-All gametypes, as well as medium-large symmetric maps for Team gametypes would make me very happy.

It would have been nice if it were true, oh well. Thanks for the explanation, Twin!

Agreed with this, although I don't think gun customisation is the way to do it - it'll take coding time and disc space and it doesn't really add anything, it might even make it harder to tell what gun an opponent has and knowing how the correct tactics to counter certain weapons has always been important in Halo. Armour customisation works well because it makes individual players more recognisable, and doesn't give them an inherent 'confusion' advantage.

I thought it was supposed to be inside the Mark V helmet, although actually this makes a bit of sense - I wonder if it's been flipped from left to right, though? That thing at the bottom right looks like a motion tracker and the top left looks like a display for weapons and ammunition. Good spot, though!

Same, SWAT was made for Zero Bloom. Since it's supposed to be one shot kill, it should always be about how accurate a shooter you are, not how well you can pace your shots. There is nothing as infuriating as getting to a triple kill and then dying because the fourth guy has a tiny reticule but yours is fully expanded, even though you fire first and his head is dead centred in the reticule.

The Mausoleum battle at the end of 'Gravemind' was almost impossible on Legendary if you actually joined in instead of just trying to sneak around the sides. I suppose it wasn't really hard in that it could be skipped, but if like me you were determined to clean out the room...

Only thing is I'm not sure we even could get it changed now - it's a big alteration to gameplay and something of that size would probably be part of a second title update. I suppose it's worth a shot though, definitely won't happen if we aren't vocal!

Only thing I'd really like to see as far as variable gun skins go is perhaps little lights or markers which change colour depending on which team the user belongs to, a la Gears of War. Just to make it a little easier to identify which team players belong to on poorly lit maps or whatever. Otherwise, there's not really any point, it's fancy and all but what does it really add to gameplay?

It's not sexist at all. He said 'Kat is a bad driver', not 'Women are bad drivers'. Do you understand the difference? Also, yes, all the AI drivers may be bad drivers, but Kat's AI seems particularly poor. The average Marines don't drive off cliffs or into the ocean nearly as much as she does.

I trust you'll provide reputable evidence of this contract? The one which makes so much sense?

Darn you, Mystic. You always manage to say exactly what I'm thinking in a much better way than I ever could! Anyway, I think there is a case for bleedthrough being a problem in its current form. It really is just too powerful, which was something I also felt was an issue in Halo 3. As is, if someone has even as much as a third of their shield remaining, a melee will still kill them instantly. The system might work a little better if overall melee damage was reduced to, say 65% - that way it's three melees to the kill on a fully shielded opponent, but a melee will only kill if shields are half a hit point from popping anyway. This stops it being disgustingly overpowered and still allows players to be killed through shields if they're already wounded, which would feel a lot fairer than the current system. Just for reference, here's health and damage stats: Spartans have 70 hit points in their Shield. Spartans have 45 hit points in their Health. Spartans do 70 hit points of damage with a melee. A 65% melee strength means each hit does 45.5 points of damage.

Nope, it's just TU gametypes rather than Anniversary, the latter of which is where the God Pistol lives. If you want to play the Anniversary maps with regular TU setting you can also go to the Anniversary Squad playlist, which allows players a choice between TU and Anniversary settings in the pre-match lobby.

It's not all about risk/reward scenarios, it's also about getting an even balance between teams. Here's an example. On 'Midship' in Halo 2, you had an Energy Sword and a Shotgun sitting in the open in the middle of the map, in an exposed position where anyone attacking the area was vulnerable to fire from all directions. This creates satisfying risk/reward levels. However, both weapons were an equal distance from each team - from the start of the game, both teams had exactly the same chance to get these weapons. Another example is the Gravity Hammer on Halo 3's 'Guardian'. The area it was located featured long, open sight lines and could be attacked from above, again creating a satisfactory risk/reward situation. It was also equally accessible to both teams from the start - Red team wasn't more likely to get it because they initially spawned closer or because it was plalced somewhere they could get to more easily than Blue team. You get the same situation with the Rocket Launcher and Sniper Rifle on 'Sandtrap', the Ghost on 'Isolation', and the Energy Sword and Rocket Launcher on 'The Pit'. Reach doesn't follow these rules. On 'Sword Base', for example, Red Team can get to the Grenade Launcher completely uncontested from the very start of the game, as well as having a much easier time getting hold of the Shotgun. On 'Reflection', Red Team gets the Sniper Rifle and the Energy Sword straight away and don't even have to fight for them, while Blue Team have to fight if they want to get the Rocket Launcher. One team automatically gets the Grenade Launcher on 'Uncaged' and 'Powerhouse', and of course the Rocket Launcher on 'Pinnacle'. So in short, it's not only that some teams basically get uncontested access to power weapons, but that they often get different numbers of power weapons too. It's not right that one team gets two free game-changers while the other team only gets one, and it's not truly a fun competition a a result.

I'm not arguing with it, I'm just wondering when it was introduced - I remember seeing cursing on here fairly recently.

I didn't know there was a word filter.

The version I played game the Spartans overshields and double damage. That went too far the other way, they were just about unstoppable

Thanks dude - it's a gametype I haven't played since, I think, November 2010 - they had a special edition in matchmaking for a week and that was the last I saw of it!

Does anyone know if there's still the four-player restriction when playing Firefight Versus? 2v2 does't seem like it would be a lot of fun...

I really do hope this is fixed, that looks like a terrible problem!

If 'Nades are still going to be able to do collision damage, there should be a medal for killing an enemy with a direct impact - I think they're capable of doing headshot damage too, so perhaps there could be a separate one for that? Perhaps they could be called 'Tapping Out' and 'Not the Face!', or something.

I completely agree, imagine if in Modern Warfare 2 the M4A1, FAMAS, M16, ACR, TAR-21, SCAR, FN2000, and the AK47 had been even remotely similar! Anyway, to pull this to pieces, the Plasma Rifle works very differently fro the Plasma Repeater and Assault Rifle as it does extra damage to Shields and less damage to Health, as well as slower bullet travel times so that it's devastating at close quarters but weaker at longer distances, although it makes an excellent support weapon. Anyway, map sizes - that's why you carry two weapons with you. You have a DMR or a Battle Rifle for mid range combat and an Assault Rifle for getting up close. I don't really see how you can complain about the Needle Rifle and the DMR doing the same thing on one hand and then asking for a DMR and Battle Rifle on the other. If you want raw variety, the DMR is more powerful than the Needle Rifle and has higher recoil, but can scope in further, so what you've suggested is actually already in place. They fill the same role, but how they do it is different. Anyway, there really have to be at least two weapons which fill roughly the same role for most situations - one for each faction - as otherwise it becomes harder to balance the game and gives less variety in set pieces. Now, that's not to say there can't be weapons here and there which are exclusive to one side or completely unique - there is no functional equivalent for the Plasma Pistol, for example, or the Brute Shot. Most weaponry however needs to have a rough equivalent, and there certainly need to be balanced faction-specific varieties of any general purpose weapons like the DMR or Assault Rifle.