RyanCFC Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 halo reach has no competitive state at all. you could be the worse player on the game and reach high ranks, while halo 2 and 3 had all the competivte feeling to it. Missed the halo 2 days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodus Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I don't mean to sound like an ******* but if you don't like it, don't like what's happening shut up and don't buy the game. I'm sure there are plenty of other games that can keep you entertained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanCFC Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 All I want is a multiplayer experience that is very balanced, very competitive, and limits the bullcrap to a bare minimum. That is why I played Halo 3 for so long and never got bored of it. That's all I want. And no, it can't be an optional "play customs" thing. If they don't base Halo 4 off the same kind of system, people will jump into it, get tired of it, and play the next best thing. They want a balanced and competitive system that can sustain a huge population like Halo 2 and 3 did. i agree with every word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Boo Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I like Halo 3 better, but sometimes when I play it, I miss my sprint. As long as they have sprint I'm ok. How can you say you like halo 3 better? You`ve never played halo 4. That`s like saying milk is better than chocolate milk before chocolate milk was even invented. But seriously, this flood of new changes is overwhelming, and some of you react negatively, but guys, lets give it a chance. I believe in 343, and I think you have every reason to do so as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer137 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I'm fine with everything else with the loadouts and all but please don't put armor lock!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of The People Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I don't mean to sound like an ******* but if you don't like it, don't like what's happening shut up and don't buy the game. I'm sure there are plenty of other games that can keep you entertained. A game needs constructive criticism to get better. When people ( as you say) complain, it's because they care about the game. Someone who's played through the Halo series or has come to love the game can't just go buy a different game, there's no other game like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WonderWombat Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 If the matchmaking isn't good the game fails, its that simple. That's what is wrong with many games this day and age. Everything has to do with the multiplayer. Whatever happened to just creative writing, and interesting characters. Even Halo has fallen victim to this, I personally think Halo 3's campaign was pretty sloppy. And Reach's wasn't very extraordinary either. If it were up to me I would take matchmaking our of Halo and leave it so that it is just a strong story based game. Spartan Ops would stay as it seems to be story driven too. But it does seem that 343 is trying to change the past few years of Halo story telling via video games which I think is good. Make a solid story, make Master Chief actually interesting, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB77 Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Could I suggest that this be locked and that this thread may sink like it should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliawesome Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I also cant stand halo reachs multiplayer. Halo 3s multiplayer was much better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SatanicBagels Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 I don't mean to sound like an ******* but if you don't like it, don't like what's happening shut up and don't buy the game. I'm sure there are plenty of other games that can keep you entertained. Please don't post anything this inflammatory again. It doesn't help anything. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaboss05 Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 343 Please don't ruin matchmaking, or leave it the same as Reach's is today. Bungie made a huge mistake by making that big of a change to matchmaking. There are positives to take away from Reach, but there is alot more negative. Halo 3 is sort of the opposite. There are alot more positive to take away then negative. For starters, please atleast have gametypes without ANY ARMOR POWERUPS, like how in Reach there is griffball gametypes thats standard griffball with no power ups or anything else. But all those other power ups completely made me hate reach, and I rarely play anything other then snipers in it. It is absolutley ludacris to stick someone and have them use armor lock and survive a plasma stick. Also I have always thought vehicles were supposed to be superior to someone not using a vehicle, which is why there is heavy weapons for those on foot. If they're going to get splattered and don't know how to move out of the way or jump over an incoming vehicle then thats there loss and they get splattered. Adding armor lock not only lets these players have an easy way out of dying, but it also gives them a free kill, and kind of eliminates any use for heavy weapons. Why use a Spartan Laser or Rockets to take out a vehicle when I can respawn with a way or destroying a vehicle? Or atleast change armor lock to just survive gun fire and grenades AROUND them for the time being until the armor lock wears off. That still lets a players teammate come and help him, but it doesn't make it completely unfair for the other players who are attacking the player using armor lock. Being able to Respawn knowing your invulnerable to grenade sticks is a cheap unfair advantage. Jet packs takes the skill out of halo from both sides 1) If your using the jet pack and just going straight up in the air it's very easy to be killed by a skilled player because you are not moving side to side, or atleast not nearly as fast as you could be on the ground. 2) For players who are firing at someone with a jet pack and are in an intense DMR/BR duel, its unfair to them if the other person can jet pack to safety, or jet pack in the air to pro-long the duel and get to a better place to fight from. It also gives players advantages to get through certain loop holes in specific maps and get to unreachable spots by other people. Another unfair advantage. Those are my big complaints about the armor abilities. Especially armor lock, I can't stress enough how unfair and just plain "cheap" it is to use that. As for the controversy between Reach and Halo 3's ranking system why not combine the two? More similar to Halo 3 but keep the credit system and make people earn through credits and ranks the armor and equipment they unlock. Reach's was just to easy, it never showed true skill and takes away all the competitiveness away from halo which makes it less fun.(a challenge is what brings out the best in everyone, and if there is no challenge then there won't be any fun for the serious players out there) There are countless times when I'll play an Inheritor on Reach and think "Okay this guy is going to be really good, I'm in for a challenge." only to find out that he has 10,000 more deaths then kills, which doesn't make him a very good player. It just means he has played a ton. Also the challenges were a great addition to Reach in my opinion too because it showed how the whole game is still fun as opposed to just the Matchmaking, and they were like they should be, very challenging! But back to matchmaking; perhaps have two different ranks in Halo 4? Like a social one thats for fun similar to Reach, and also a ranking system similar to Halo 3 for those who want to play in a competitive one. Not necessarily a 1-50 ranking system, but something to make it challenging and show someone's skill in a specific gametype. And as far as boosting goes, there are ways around it such as losing rank. For example, if you were to achieve a 50 in Halo 3 unfairly and weren't good enough to keep your 50 in that playlist, then why not make it to where every time you're ranking were to go down from losing a lot, your highest skill achieved went down too, and there fore take away your from being a 50 general to a 49 brigadier. Make sense? But even if some people find ways around the system to boost, so be it. Having the highest rank doesn't make you the best player, and it doesn't necessarily take away the competitiveness because your trying to achieve a certain rank through YOUR skill and for yourself. Not someone else's. All those players who boost do is have a title next to their name. It takes away the competitiveness from them not us and that's their own fault. Other complaints with Reach: It was said by the makers themselves they were doing a cross of CoD and Unreal Tournament when they made Halo Reach. That is why its matchmaking is hated. Armor Lock, and JetPacks, are NOT part of halo. The DMR is limited. Halo is your 4 shot BR, strafe, teamwork, controlling power weapons, and controlling the map. Hell, they took out the overshield and stuff in Reach. In griffball on there are countless times that you kill each other when it shouldn't be so. Just irritating and easily fixable. Keep killing each other it makes it fair! But just like tweek it or something so that if one person swings is hammer first and clearly does they aren't killed too. Same goes with someone with a sword. If I get the bultrue medal that means I killed them in the act of lunging. Therefore I KILLED THEM. Not we killed each other. Another thing Reach didn't do to well. Can't tell you how insane that drives me. Still can't wait for Halo 4, but i really hope there are some changes to matchmaking, and that it's alittle less like Reach's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickman5030 Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 personaly i LOVE the classes but i see where your coming from. What 343 should do is have seperate game modes, ones with classes and ones without that should make everyone happy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaboss05 Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 First off I would just like to say that the title for the thread is ridiculous! In order for Bungie to have ruined Multiplayer in Reach, they would have had to let down or completely throw out the window, anything they showed or released prior to the game release. from the beginning every player knew what Reach was going to be...so stop crying about that one! I understand how your competative nature would lead you to this assumption, but you are wrong. Playing a game that invloves many different aspects and available play styles, only neccessatates your need to have a higher skill level in order to dominate the competition. Calling Loadouts classes is not right either. Classes implies that you are limited to it, by rank or selection. Loadouts are not restrictive and can be changed out upon respawn. Armor abilities did not hurt reach. Perhaps before you start to blame game mechanics for a games failing populations, you should do your homework first. Halo 3 has overhyped and flawed, yet it did fairly well for quite a while. It did not do well because they got things "right" as you would say, but because at the time Halo 3 released, it had no competition to detract players from it. Go ahead and look at the lineup of titles coming out around the same time or shortly after it....there is not one title in there that had anything worth playing over Halo 3. With Reach, we had Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 just to name a few. All these games hurt Reach very much. That my friend is a fact, not an opinion. I get where you are going with this, but your basis for this is soley your opinion based on YOUR experience. My experience is quite the opposite. In Halo 3 I owned easily with the BR alone and a good old fashion SMG/PRifle combo. In Reach, I get owned constantly. My skill level in reach compared to H3 sucks. I just didn't have the ability to evolve my skill to adapt to Reach's gameplay. Does that make Reach less skilled than H3? No it doesn't. It simply means that I am less skilled in Reach due to my own shortcomings. It's all a matter or personal preferrence and experience. First off, your rank or multiple accounts with rank do not dictate anything you say to be fact at all. get off your high fricken horse with that noise. Second, there was no devaluing of skill in Reach. If you suck under certain circumstances or situations that is your own fault and shortcoming for not being able to adapt properly to a new set of MM guidelines and mechanics. Quit rage crying about something you can't overcome, and stop blaming the devs for it. Third, how ridiculous is your bloom comment. Example time!! Halo 1 had the magnum. The magnum under constant fire would spread shots like a shotgun all over the place. Fact!!! The magnum in Halo 1 is the only weapon to date to have it's firing spread extend past the reticule in which the shots are supposed to be contained to. In my 10 years of playing Halo Combat Evolved, I have never once heard anyone ***** or moan about the bloom on the pistol. And to date, everyone hands down still says Halo 1 is the King of them All!!! Well, you see where this is going......get off the whole bloom thing and just accept that it is there and has always been there. And before you try to start going off about how it's different...IT IS NOT!!! I have explained all this before in great detail with pulled data values from the weapons in every Halo title for everyone to see. As for the comments about AA's...get over it. You know damn well that people have loadouts and every time you engage someone, you take the chance of having it turned back on you. Where is all this skill you supposedly have then? Obviously it isn't in MM going against players with base loadouts. Aside from this, I saw some ridiculous comment somewhere about someone being on the ground and someone else being 25 feet in the air. What a horrible way to describe the advantage you think the AA's give you. Apply this logic to your theory my friends...... If the person above you is 25 feet up in the air, how does he have the advantage in a whole of the situations. His perspective is skewed by his distance and vantage point, making him vulnerable to teammates of yours, and vulnerable due to his lack of perspective on you. When he finally comes down upon you, you could be holding a sword for all he knows, or even maybe a shotgun, or even have armor lock or etc.... you see where I am going with this. Having skill means you can adapt and adjust to any situation using a wide variety of tactics, weapons and natural environment to combat an enemy and achieve victory. From what I see around here...there is obviously a great deal of skill lacking by the way you all try to pass off the game as the reason why you suck or why things are unfair in the end. Your not convincing anyone that Reach is better then Halo 3 or that it takes more skill. Why have heavy weapons if I can just switch to armor lock to destroy a vehicle? You'll never convince me that pushing X as a vehicle is coming to splatter you or a person is about to kill you takes more skill then moving out of the way, jumping over, boarding a vehicle, or destroying it with heavy weapons etc. And lets say I am going up against someone with armor lock. They're about to die, they punch the ground and then a team mate has time to come and make it a 2 on 1. How the hell does that show less skill or how is that fair? It's not. And Jetpacks? Your little 25 feet in the air argument is something some guy who has never played Halo before would do. Good players rarely use the Jetpack for that exact reason, and when they do it's simply to get to spots with a sniper that give them an unfair advantage. How does that show any skill? It doesn't. Go look me up on Reach I don't suck and I still hate the game. There is nothing competitive about it. Your eventually going to rank up just from playing so much, so what's the point in putting forth any effort? A guy with a .50 KD can be an Inheritor with no skill. What's the value in achieving the rank if anyone can do it, and no skill is required? There is none. Your argument for Reach being good completely sucks. Get off Reach and go try one of the other Halo games before you come in here and try and talk about how high and mighty Reach is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickman5030 Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 How can you say you like halo 3 better? You`ve never played halo 4. That`s like saying milk is better than chocolate milk before chocolate milk was even invented. But seriously, this flood of new changes is overwhelming, and some of you react negatively, but guys, lets give it a chance. I believe in 343, and I think you have every reason to do so as well. i strongly agree with you, their is a TON of new stuff in halo 4 that we dont even know about. lets save our critisism for AFTER the game is released Your not convincing anyone that Reach is better then Halo 3 or that it takes more skill. Why have heavy weapons if I can just switch to armor lock to destroy a vehicle? You'll never convince me that pushing X as a vehicle is coming to splatter you or a person is about to kill you takes more skill then moving out of the way, jumping over, boarding a vehicle, or destroying it with heavy weapons etc. And lets say I am going up against someone with armor lock. They're about to die, they punch the ground and then a team mate has time to come and make it a 2 on 1. How the hell does that show less skill or how is that fair? It's not. And Jetpacks? Your little 25 feet in the air argument is something some guy who has never played Halo before would do. Good players rarely use the Jetpack for that exact reason, and when they do it's simply to get to spots with a sniper that give them an unfair advantage. How does that show any skill? It doesn't. Go look me up on Reach I don't suck and I still hate the game. There is nothing competitive about it. Your eventually going to rank up just from playing so much, so what's the point in putting forth any effort? A guy with a .50 KD can be an Inheritor with no skill. What's the value in achieving the rank if anyone can do it, and no skill is required? There is none. Your argument for Reach being good completely sucks. Get off Reach and go try one of the other Halo games before you come in here and try and talk about how high and mighty Reach is first on your commet on armor lock, it it DIFFICULT to destroy any vehicle other than a ghost/wraith with armor lock and if you do then its because they were being fool hardy(also it is impossible to destroy a scorpian,warthog, or aircraft with armorlock the game mechanics dont allow it). also using armor lock to avoid being killed takes MORE skill than moving out of the way for example if some one rushes u with a sword and u decide to go into armor lock then ur dead all they have to do is wait for ur armor lock to expire. next on ur comment "And lets say I am going up against someone with armor lock. They're about to die, they punch the ground and then a team mate has time to come and make it a 2 on 1. How the hell does that show less skill or how is that fair? It's not." if that happens to you then ur still fighting 1on 1 (guy in armor lock is imoble) its just a different person and if you cant kill someone in armor lock then u clearly havent been trying very hard, its very easy: 1 just throw a gernade at them when they're about to exit armor lock 2. stand behind them out of reach of the EMP and just assasinate them when they exit armor lock 3. walk around them in a circle then melee them when they exit armor lock 4. stand close to them with a CQC weapon (need i continue?). your second paragraph is just you ranting b**ching and rage crying if you dont like Halo Reach then DONT PLAY IT WE DONT NEED TO HEAR UR COMPAINING its fine if you dont like the game but please keep ur rage crying to yourself First off I would just like to say that the title for the thread is ridiculous! In order for Bungie to have ruined Multiplayer in Reach, they would have had to let down or completely throw out the window, anything they showed or released prior to the game release. from the beginning every player knew what Reach was going to be...so stop crying about that one! I understand how your competative nature would lead you to this assumption, but you are wrong. Playing a game that invloves many different aspects and available play styles, only neccessatates your need to have a higher skill level in order to dominate the competition. Calling Loadouts classes is not right either. Classes implies that you are limited to it, by rank or selection. Loadouts are not restrictive and can be changed out upon respawn. Armor abilities did not hurt reach. Perhaps before you start to blame game mechanics for a games failing populations, you should do your homework first. Halo 3 has overhyped and flawed, yet it did fairly well for quite a while. It did not do well because they got things "right" as you would say, but because at the time Halo 3 released, it had no competition to detract players from it. Go ahead and look at the lineup of titles coming out around the same time or shortly after it....there is not one title in there that had anything worth playing over Halo 3. With Reach, we had Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 just to name a few. All these games hurt Reach very much. That my friend is a fact, not an opinion. I get where you are going with this, but your basis for this is soley your opinion based on YOUR experience. My experience is quite the opposite. In Halo 3 I owned easily with the BR alone and a good old fashion SMG/PRifle combo. In Reach, I get owned constantly. My skill level in reach compared to H3 sucks. I just didn't have the ability to evolve my skill to adapt to Reach's gameplay. Does that make Reach less skilled than H3? No it doesn't. It simply means that I am less skilled in Reach due to my own shortcomings. It's all a matter or personal preferrence and experience. First off, your rank or multiple accounts with rank do not dictate anything you say to be fact at all. get off your high fricken horse with that noise. Second, there was no devaluing of skill in Reach. If you suck under certain circumstances or situations that is your own fault and shortcoming for not being able to adapt properly to a new set of MM guidelines and mechanics. Quit rage crying about something you can't overcome, and stop blaming the devs for it. Third, how ridiculous is your bloom comment. Example time!! Halo 1 had the magnum. The magnum under constant fire would spread shots like a shotgun all over the place. Fact!!! The magnum in Halo 1 is the only weapon to date to have it's firing spread extend past the reticule in which the shots are supposed to be contained to. In my 10 years of playing Halo Combat Evolved, I have never once heard anyone ***** or moan about the bloom on the pistol. And to date, everyone hands down still says Halo 1 is the King of them All!!! Well, you see where this is going......get off the whole bloom thing and just accept that it is there and has always been there. And before you try to start going off about how it's different...IT IS NOT!!! I have explained all this before in great detail with pulled data values from the weapons in every Halo title for everyone to see. As for the comments about AA's...get over it. You know damn well that people have loadouts and every time you engage someone, you take the chance of having it turned back on you. Where is all this skill you supposedly have then? Obviously it isn't in MM going against players with base loadouts. Aside from this, I saw some ridiculous comment somewhere about someone being on the ground and someone else being 25 feet in the air. What a horrible way to describe the advantage you think the AA's give you. Apply this logic to your theory my friends...... If the person above you is 25 feet up in the air, how does he have the advantage in a whole of the situations. His perspective is skewed by his distance and vantage point, making him vulnerable to teammates of yours, and vulnerable due to his lack of perspective on you. When he finally comes down upon you, you could be holding a sword for all he knows, or even maybe a shotgun, or even have armor lock or etc.... you see where I am going with this. Having skill means you can adapt and adjust to any situation using a wide variety of tactics, weapons and natural environment to combat an enemy and achieve victory. From what I see around here...there is obviously a great deal of skill lacking by the way you all try to pass off the game as the reason why you suck or why things are unfair in the end. Thank you so much Twin for finally tossing some fact in these rage cryers faces i cant tell you how much i agree with this post and all of its points expecialy the part about AA adding another level of skill to the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaboss05 Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 i strongly agree with you, their is a TON of new stuff in halo 4 that we dont even know about. lets save our critisism for AFTER the game is released first on your commet on armor lock, it it DIFFICULT to destroy any vehicle other than a ghost/wraith with armor lock and if you do then its because they were being fool hardy(also it is impossible to destroy a scorpian,warthog, or aircraft with armorlock the game mechanics dont allow it). also using armor lock to avoid being killed takes MORE skill than moving out of the way for example if some one rushes u with a sword and u decide to go into armor lock then ur dead all they have to do is wait for ur armor lock to expire. next on ur comment "And lets say I am going up against someone with armor lock. They're about to die, they punch the ground and then a team mate has time to come and make it a 2 on 1. How the hell does that show less skill or how is that fair? It's not." if that happens to you then ur still fighting 1on 1 (guy in armor lock is imoble) its just a different person and if you cant kill someone in armor lock then u clearly havent been trying very hard, its very easy: 1 just throw a gernade at them when they're about to exit armor lock 2. stand behind them out of reach of the EMP and just assasinate them when they exit armor lock 3. walk around them in a circle then melee them when they exit armor lock 4. stand close to them with a CQC weapon (need i continue?). your second paragraph is just you ranting b**ching and rage crying if you dont like Halo Reach then DONT PLAY IT WE DONT NEED TO HEAR UR COMPAINING its fine if you dont like the game but please keep ur rage crying to yourself How can you say it's difficult? You see a vehicle coming to splatter you and you use armor lock. Plain and simple that person driving the vehicle is dead. Hell you don't even need to face them if you know how to use a radar. And as for you saying killing someone who uses armor lock is easy. Your right. It is very easy. If I have the guy one on one I can get behind him and assassinate him no questions asked. What about in Slayer though? Or big team? When there is other players. And I said a fight, meaning the armor lock guy also shooting at me, damaging my shields and health. He can hit armor lock and if his teammate comes to help then I'm screwed. No matter how good I myself or anyone else is. He can exit his armor lock and it becomes a 2 on 1 with me having no shields. How is that fair? And you say," also using armor lock to avoid being killed takes MORE skill than moving out of the way for example if some one rushes u with a sword and u decide to go into armor lock then ur dead all they have to do is wait for ur armor lock to expire." That makes no sense. You completely contradicted yourself. If your saying that someone is rushing you with a sword and you use armor lock to survive for the short period it works(meaning your gunna die after it expires) takes more skill then some how dodging or killing the sword guy then you must be pretty ignorant. And nobody's rage crying... I never said I hate Reach either, but it is god awful compared to Halo 3. I think just about everyone who is a competitor and good at Halo 3 would agree with me, and more then half of the Halo population in general would too. Don't attack me if you don't know what your talking about to try and prove Reach is better because you'll never win bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryu♥Hayabusa Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 Okay, imaboss05, this is for you. Armor lock will not be in Halo 4. The ranking system is different from Reach. Your rant has been made by many others before you. It has been explained before. Calm down and try to be optimistic. I wish this thread would be locked. It was revived for no reason and needs to die and rot accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory of a Far Dawn Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 This isn't the official forums, you know that right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.