Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection (Xbox)

Bleedthrough makes precision weapons OP

OP SII Marlo S138

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
As it says in the title. Precision weapons dominate Reach now. More so than they ever did in the past. DMR is basically a sniper rifle now, and the needle rifle is a fully automatic headshot killing machine. AR and shotgun are practically useless now due to bleedthrough. You're better off shooting someone twice with the DMR and they melee them for the kill. Shields almost feel worthless. What's the point of having them if you get shot in the head ans die when you still have shields? That's what the actual sniper rifle is for, not the DMR and Needle rifle! Weapons people actually spawn with! We all have our different playing styles. Not everyone is good with precision weapons, so we choose to use the AR, shotgun, or needler (others). So for those of us who play like this, we are COMPLETELY outmatched against those with DMRs or needle rifles. Bleedthrough HAS TO GO. We might as well be marines.
Not really sure what 343 was trying to accomplish by letting precision weapons have bleedthrough headshots with the TU. Bleedthrough melee I’m totally fine with as the lack of it made Reach’s melee combat feel clunky compared to literally every other Halo game (and I’d argue bleedthrough melee is an indirect buff to automatic weapons since it gives them more utility through quick burst fire/melee combos) but bleedthrough headshots were totally unnecessary.
I mean bleedthrough needs to stay, however it needed rebalance since OG Reach, it should work like Halo 5's one, where you received a certain ammount of damage to your health based on your shields left, that is perfect, because no bledthrough imo creates more unbalancing, things like the enemy having 0.5% remaining shield and no receiving melee damage to their health is bs, some days ago i managed to pull out a killtac on Invasion just because my shields recharged just a little, almost nothing, and yeah i survived but isn't fair at all

Look at my screen on this clip (top one), my last kill to get the capture isn't fair, the recharging of the shield is almost nothing and didn't get any damage (and i should receive it is fair), this to me is worse than Reach with bleedthrough

https://xboxclips.com/PACHUK%20C42/6892745b-5e15-48f8-984a-aa5254546a04
I agree, bleedthrough should go away.
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
what is bleedthrough anyways?
Bleedthrough on melee favors automatic weapons. Bleedthrough on weapons can benefit the precision weapons, but only if you take damage from another source first, which shouldn't be surprising, taking damage from other sources lowers the TTK, whoop de do.

No bleedthrough was a bad mechanic and should stay gone.
WerepyreND wrote:
Bleedthrough on melee favors automatic weapons. Bleedthrough on weapons can benefit the precision weapons, but only if you take damage from another source first, which shouldn't be surprising, taking damage from other sources lowers the TTK, whoop de do.

No bleedthrough was a bad mechanic and should stay gone.
Bleedthrough actually makes some fights fair, I have to agree with you there.

However sometimes you try to outskill someone with little shield (given that you can skip the combat in that situation) by shooting and he just comes in a straight line to finish it with a melee. But no bleedthrough is not better because I can make him lose the same amount of shield as me with a melee so we end up being on the same ground, and maybe he was moving around with better tactics. In my opinion if you take damage from someone you should be weaker than a full shield player.

I believe the best way is to keep bleedthrough enabled where it is now. Automatics are really shining now in my opinion. They have been like that since Halo 2. Just keep Invasion and maybe a Classic playlist for nostalgy.
Remove the TU and this issue would vanish.
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
MTMTE wrote:
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
Reach was a misstep. The point of investing your time into a franchise, is because you enjoy the foundation of what they have done. Halo hooked me, but the launch version of Reach and parts of Halo 4 really messed with the formula. The changes 343 have made after the backlash, I agree with.
MTMTE wrote:
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
Reach was a misstep. The point of investing your time into a franchise, is because you enjoy the foundation of what they have done. Halo hooked me, but the launch version of Reach and parts of Halo 4 really messed with the formula. The changes 343 have made after the backlash, I agree with.
Misstep seems harsh considering it was Bungie's final Halo game. I guess I play games on their individual mechanics instead of amalgamating them with their previous incarnations.
I also appreciate it when developers try new things or take chances and I think its even more appropriate to do so with an adjunct and prequel game in the series- Halo:Reach wasn't Halo 3.5 after all haha.

I think the OP might agree with me.
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
Reach was a misstep. The point of investing your time into a franchise, is because you enjoy the foundation of what they have done. Halo hooked me, but the launch version of Reach and parts of Halo 4 really messed with the formula. The changes 343 have made after the backlash, I agree with.
Misstep seems harsh considering it was Bungie's final Halo game. I guess I play games on their individual mechanics instead of amalgamating them with their previous incarnations.
I also appreciate it when developers try new things or take chances and I think its even more appropriate to do so with an adjunct and prequel game in the series- Halo:Reach wasn't Halo 3.5 after all haha.

I think the OP might agree with me.
Changing mechanics that longtime players are familiar with simply to appease to a wider audience is a great way to lose fans. That's all the removal of bleedthrough does, make the game less interesting and more of a snore fest than it already was.

One of the reason why Reach was the most contentious game until Halo 4. Bungie is not infallible. TU makes Reach 100x better.

Also you can appreciate a dev being risky and trying something new all you want. I do too. That doesn't mean the ideas they risk are good ones or should have ever actually be implemented.

Also your joke comparison about armor lock being added into 3 "to make it like other games" is pretty facetious. Bleedthrough was in 3 games prior to Reach, 4 if you count ODST. Armor Lock and the other AAs is a one-off gimmick Bungie was trying to distinguish Reach from the rest of the series and obviously this idea backfired immensely.
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
Reach was a misstep. The point of investing your time into a franchise, is because you enjoy the foundation of what they have done. Halo hooked me, but the launch version of Reach and parts of Halo 4 really messed with the formula. The changes 343 have made after the backlash, I agree with.
Misstep seems harsh considering it was Bungie's final Halo game. I guess I play games on their individual mechanics instead of amalgamating them with their previous incarnations.
I also appreciate it when developers try new things or take chances and I think its even more appropriate to do so with an adjunct and prequel game in the series- Halo:Reach wasn't Halo 3.5 after all haha.

I think the OP might agree with me.
Changing mechanics that longtime players are familiar with simply to appease to a wider audience is a great way to lose fans. That's all the removal of bleedthrough does, make the game less interesting and more of a snore fest than it already was.

One of the reason why Reach was the most contentious game until Halo 4. Bungie is not infallible. TU makes Reach 100x better.

Also you can appreciate a dev being risky and trying something new all you want. I do too. That doesn't mean the ideas they risk are good ones or should have ever actually be implemented.

Also your joke comparison about armor lock being added into 3 "to make it like other games" is pretty facetious. Bleedthrough was in 3 games prior to Reach, 4 if you count ODST. Armor Lock and the other AAs is a one-off gimmick Bungie was trying to distinguish Reach from the rest of the series and obviously this idea backfired immensely.
Again it seems weird that if you don't like the game (you've called it Reach a "misstep" and you said their "ideas backfired") you are so adamant that it be changed to fit your needs when, as you mentioned, you have 3 prior games that you do like that you can go play However me (and the OP) cant go back to the Reach we liked.

That all being said: I'm not saying MCC reach should go back to Vanilla OG reach before the TU 343 made in 2012. I'm just saying I don't like the TU updates in the MCC version aka the massive Bleedthrough. 2 DMR shots and a Melee to kill is just to dramatic of a change. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.........
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
Reach was a misstep. The point of investing your time into a franchise, is because you enjoy the foundation of what they have done. Halo hooked me, but the launch version of Reach and parts of Halo 4 really messed with the formula. The changes 343 have made after the backlash, I agree with.
Misstep seems harsh considering it was Bungie's final Halo game. I guess I play games on their individual mechanics instead of amalgamating them with their previous incarnations.
I also appreciate it when developers try new things or take chances and I think its even more appropriate to do so with an adjunct and prequel game in the series- Halo:Reach wasn't Halo 3.5 after all haha.

I think the OP might agree with me.
Changing mechanics that longtime players are familiar with simply to appease to a wider audience is a great way to lose fans. That's all the removal of bleedthrough does, make the game less interesting and more of a snore fest than it already was.

One of the reason why Reach was the most contentious game until Halo 4. Bungie is not infallible. TU makes Reach 100x better.

Also you can appreciate a dev being risky and trying something new all you want. I do too. That doesn't mean the ideas they risk are good ones or should have ever actually be implemented.

Also your joke comparison about armor lock being added into 3 "to make it like other games" is pretty facetious. Bleedthrough was in 3 games prior to Reach, 4 if you count ODST. Armor Lock and the other AAs is a one-off gimmick Bungie was trying to distinguish Reach from the rest of the series and obviously this idea backfired immensely.
Again it seems weird that if you don't like the game (you've called it Reach a "misstep" and you said their "ideas backfired") you are so adamant that it be changed to fit your needs when, as you mentioned, you have 3 prior games that you do like that you can go play However me (and the OP) cant go back to the Reach we liked.

That all being said: I'm not saying MCC reach should go back to Vanilla OG reach before the TU 343 made in 2012. I'm just saying I don't like the TU updates in the MCC version aka the massive Bleedthrough. 2 DMR shots and a Melee to kill is just to dramatic of a change. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.........
Nah I was talking about the TU in general. If the DMR got a shadow buff then that should be rectified.
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
Reach was a misstep. The point of investing your time into a franchise, is because you enjoy the foundation of what they have done. Halo hooked me, but the launch version of Reach and parts of Halo 4 really messed with the formula. The changes 343 have made after the backlash, I agree with.
Misstep seems harsh considering it was Bungie's final Halo game. I guess I play games on their individual mechanics instead of amalgamating them with their previous incarnations.
I also appreciate it when developers try new things or take chances and I think its even more appropriate to do so with an adjunct and prequel game in the series- Halo:Reach wasn't Halo 3.5 after all haha.

I think the OP might agree with me.
Nah I was talking about the TU in general. If the DMR got a shadow buff then that should be rectified.
Whoops yeah I misunderstood you fam. I don't think Reach should go back to the like "day 1 Vanilla" with the OP Armor Lock, OP Active Camo etc.
I just think the new amount of Bleedthrough in the MCC version is too much, and would agree with your shadow buff comment.

Here look at this clip- for some background he RED player has around 25%-35% shield after an engagement with Blue's teammate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qou3zUWfC8w
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
MTMTE wrote:
All I know is that I have been playing Halo for over 15 years. I also know I have never been a high level player, but Reach TU feels better to me. It feels more like the other games in the series. I enjoy MCC for the ability to jump from game to game, years apart, but feel familiar.
But Reach is supposed to be different as Bungie designed it that way. If you like the other games in the series ..play those games lol! Should Armor Lock be added to Halo 3 to make it more like the other games?
Reach was a misstep. The point of investing your time into a franchise, is because you enjoy the foundation of what they have done. Halo hooked me, but the launch version of Reach and parts of Halo 4 really messed with the formula. The changes 343 have made after the backlash, I agree with.
Misstep seems harsh considering it was Bungie's final Halo game. I guess I play games on their individual mechanics instead of amalgamating them with their previous incarnations.
I also appreciate it when developers try new things or take chances and I think its even more appropriate to do so with an adjunct and prequel game in the series- Halo:Reach wasn't Halo 3.5 after all haha.

I think the OP might agree with me.
Nah I was talking about the TU in general. If the DMR got a shadow buff then that should be rectified.
Whoops yeah I misunderstood you fam. I don't think Reach should go back to the like "day 1 Vanilla" with the OP Armor Lock, OP Active Camo etc.
I just think the new amount of Bleedthrough in the MCC version is too much, and would agree with your shadow buff comment.

Here look at this clip- for some background he RED player has around 25%-35% shield after an engagement with Blue's teammate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qou3zUWfC8w
Yea I saw that from the other thread. I'm trying to come up with explanations for why it happened but I can't really come up with one. A video from 2012 shows it is 3 shots, but your shield amount is definitely what it is after 2 shots.

Maybe it was a case of latency on the 3rd shot, I don't really know. The best way to find out would be to take them side by side and see what the deal is, but I don't have a working 360 so I can't test the original version myself. I could have sworn I've shot someone twice and melee'd but they didn't die. I'll do some fumbling around in MCC when I get home later.
Not really sure what 343 was trying to accomplish by letting precision weapons have bleedthrough headshots with the TU. Bleedthrough melee I’m totally fine with as the lack of it made Reach’s melee combat feel clunky compared to literally every other Halo game (and I’d argue bleedthrough melee is an indirect buff to automatic weapons since it gives them more utility through quick burst fire/melee combos) but bleedthrough headshots were totally unnecessary.
It is unnecessary
Removing bleedthrough for precision weapons could be a possibility... Halo 2 is like that (ignoring button combos); you can't kill someone who has shield with a melee, unless you take advantage of the momentum/speed based system and have an SMG/Plasma Rifle in your hands.
Nah, leave Bleedthrough because one of the stupidest things I've seen in Reach are people just sprinting to Melee twice ignoring the bullets and getting the kill because of double melee.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2