Nope, no pink lasers. The fucking n00bs.

Mod74 wrote:

Yeah, whatever. I've seen enough posts about the importance of holding a power weapon (three on this page) to know it's important enough to change the way players approach a map and the penalty for not doing it is huge. If you think that's balance you're living in la la land. Because team A was unlucky/unskilled/uncoordinated enough to lose the initial encounter they're disadvantaged in subsequent ones. A disadvantage which is then rolled up into the next power weapon spot. It's a mobile killstreak. Bleat about how little I know but I know it's the tactic that the game encourages and players (again on this page) defend it by saying it's the way to win.

1) If there were no power weapons in Halo there'd be no reason to move. It's staggering that you think power weapons promote camping in Halo. They were necessary to stop camping. Provided they're placed well they make people go to vulnerable parts of the map and fight in awkward positions. It's idiotic posts like these and your condescending attitude that makes me think you're trolling when you talk about Halo.

2) If you outskill/out coordinate the enemy team you should be rewarded for it, do you not understand the basic element of risk vs reward in games? You seem to be saying that rewards are bad which is a mind blowingly dumb position to take. Go and read Sirlin.

3) The power weapon advantage DOESN'T carry over to the next power weapon. That's the beauty of the system. It's not a snowball rolling down the hill mechanic. It provides a real reward to win the opening skirmishes and if you use the reward well it gains you an advantage in kills/map control/ability to get objective for a while but in 2.30 minutes time you won't have rockets anymore and it'll again be an even fight.

Go and read Sirlin? Ok Will Hunting, thanks for your guidance.

Actually forget it. I knew mentioning Halo would be like telling a group of 6 year olds the animal man was visiting school today.

Halo is and always has been perfect. Close the thread. No need to discus the future of FPS because Nirvana has been achieved.

It isn't perfect, but it is one good system that can work if tweaked appropriately and is a better core system than layers of unlocks and perks.

Go and read Sirlin? Ok Will Hunting, thanks for your guidance.

Actually forget it. I knew mentioning Halo would be like telling a group of 6 year olds the animal man was visiting school today.

Halo is and always has been perfect. Close the thread. No need to discus the future of FPS because Nirvana has been achieved.

Are you for real? You have no idea how stupid you sound to anyone who has any idea about Halo at all. It's embarrassing. You're like a 6 year old telling an Oxford maths professor why 2+2 = 5.

I would buy everyone a current mid-spec PC and 1000 starter gold on Tribes. And this thread would die.

Mod74 wrote:

I knew mentioning Halo would be like telling a group of 6 year olds the animal man was visiting school today.

I resent that comparison with what was one of the happiest times of my life at primary.

So, er, does anyone quite like the idea of "pay to win" FPS games gaining ground in the future? My reactions and avaialble free time will never again match a 14 year old's, but my bank balance can be used to pound him into the ground.

No power weapons and no killstreaks.

So you start with a gun and you shoot each other? Jesus, that gets old quickly.

I've played plenty of halo with only BRs/DMRs etc, and it's fun for a time, and SWAT currently has a big pop on H4, but I'd go fucking mental if there were no weapons to pick up, mix things up.

So that's no close range weapons either, that's no snipers, that's no rockets.

It's just bang bang bang for all eternity. Jesus, I'm losing the will to live just thinking about it.

Even CS has the killstreak reward in the form of the AWP.

Frankly, online FPS games without overpowered match swingers are boring. If there's an element of risk to them like Quake does (Quad Damage spawns were always the most fiercely contested spots) and apparently Halo, it's fine.

Even TF2 has them in the form of Uber and Kritzcharges. In comp play those decide the match 90% of the time.

Fine. In Halo (not necessarily in other games) that would massively disincentivize map movement. Presumably you also remove vehicles? Because they allow 'the rich to get richer'. And we wouldn't want maps that include flow and coherence to the maps so there's actual map control I assume? Because whoever has map control is just 'going to get richer'. Trying to remove all reward from games is a) impossible (because someone's gotta win) and b) foolish (because risk vs reward is GOOD game design).

Facewon wrote:

So you start with a gun and you shoot each other? Jesus, that gets old quickly.

I've played plenty of halo with only BRs/DMRs etc, and it's fun for a time, and SWAT currently has a big pop on H4, but I'd go fucking mental if there were no weapons to pick up, mix things up.

So that's no close range weapons either, that's no snipers, that's no rockets.

It's just bang bang bang for all eternity. Jesus, I'm losing the will to live just thinking about it.

Surely this is the point of playlists?

if I had my way we'd go back to the halo 2 model but that's probably just nostalgia for my youth talking.

All of the classic FPS games had power weapons (usually an RPG being the major one). What made the games so good was the constant wrestle for control due to fixed weapon spawns. It encourages movement and combat especially on a well designed map. It's certainly what I miss in Halo 4 as I've always thought Halo was the closest thing to the deathmatch games of old. I'm sure this has all been discussed before anyway.

Edit: Fuck this thread has moved quick!

Facewon wrote:

So you start with a gun and you shoot each other? Jesus, that gets old quickly. I've played plenty of halo with only BRs/DMRs etc, and it's fun for a time, and SWAT currently has a big pop on H4, but I'd go fucking mental if there were no weapons to pick up, mix things up. So that's no close range weapons either, that's no snipers, that's no rockets. It's just bang bang bang for all eternity. Jesus, I'm losing the will to live just thinking about it.

I didn't say you couldn't have them. Let the player choose what to bring to the fight not have a Benny Hill rush for the stuff they're good at using. I don't believe for a second players/teams don't camp a spot whilst waiting for a weapon to spawn.

You can argue it encourages player movement, sure, that's one approach. You could also argue it creates hot spots for action (which I'm sue the heat maps would bear out). What I prefer is starting a game with the weapons I like not hunting for them and then being able to play to the best of my abilities. Removing killstreaks would remove some of the incentive to camp with them.

Facewon wrote:

Quite, my jibe at SWAT wasn't meant to suggest it should be removed. I played a game of it yesterday, got bored, and I never need visit it again. Everybody wins.

haha I personally could play nothing but SWAT forever if I had to. The option for something else is nice though.

not that I even play halo any more...