[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="mutenpika"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"] Taking on more damage than your opponent that you're down to such a fine line isn't something I would call all that skillful. It's more like a last ditch effort to try to get the cheap shot in after getting railed during a shot off. The new design should actually make you sit back and ponder your ability, not complain b/c what once worked like a saving grace has now been tweaked.
Like I said before, I don't agree with this concept that someone should be rewarded for getting in close at the expense of their health. It's reckless.
mutenpika
If you recklessly approach, you're just as open to melee attack as your opponent. Not to mention that the new system practically guaruntees a "first shot" win.
By your logic, the shotgun and mauler should be removed as well. Melees require you to get even closer, and even then do less damage. In the end they're a calculated aid and a balancer, not a reward for recklessness.
I know if you recklessly approach you're open for a melee, hence why I called it a reckless tactic.
"First shot" doesn't mean most damage. You can be hit first and still cause more damage over the course of a shoot off.
I never said melee should be "removed" anywhere in any post in this thread. And I don't consider the shotgun style guns last ditch efforts.
And I think the new melee design is more balanced.
I can't help but think that the theories you field are a little contradictory.
It's unskilled to approach and take damage like mad, just to win a fight (an objection you raised to my argument). Yet the shotgun style is just that, and there's no getting around it.
First shot almost always means most damage, the guns do too much damage for that not to be the case.
You never said they should be removed, but you keep stating they're skill-less methods that unbalance the game.
The new melee system just puts more of a physical "oomph" onto a firefight that's decided elsewhere, and prompts the melee-ers to get uncomfortably, unstrategically close in a situation that's already been decided with guns. Why not just finish it with guns in this system?
With your arguments, there's no reason to keep the melees in at all. They no longer serve any purpose whatsoever, except for stealth kills, which could be made context-sensitive!
No, he is not, I completely understand what he means.
I noticed that most people who complain here are meleers, who prefers melee instead of gunfight. As a gunslinger myself, I prefer Halo3 melee system way better, because I actaully have a chance to kill someone when my back is facing a wall or when I've being cornerd.
And to reply those "the more health = wins" statement is completely noobish, you can do so much things to turn the tide of battle, run away and hide to regain health, throw gernade at them, or switch/pickup a stronger weapon and shoot back, etc.
I'm not saying melee should be removed or anything, because they are necessary, like when you have no good guns or just out of ammo then it's the time to use melee, because you are desperate, you hope for a chance to kill someone before go find ammo/guns, just like real life.
Imagine in a real gun fight, when you got shot once, you don't go right out charging at the enemy, you only do that when you have being overruned or out of ammo.
Log in to comment