In the past, about 75% of the people didn't like AA. I wonder if that number has increased, or decreased.
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Monthly Auto Armor Poll
» Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:50 pm
In the past, about 75% of the people didn't like AA. I wonder if that number has increased, or decreased.
-
kitten maciver - Posts: 3472
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:36 pm
» Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:48 am
In the past, about 75% of the people didn't like AA. I wonder if that number has increased, or decreased.
Increased, i've noticed a lot of vets using AA to avoid one hit kills, which is pretty much the only way newer players were killing them :X
-
Ruben Bernal - Posts: 3364
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:58 pm
» Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:59 pm
Personally, I barely notice it anymore. Good players will hit armour immediately anyway, while bad ones will usually have it equipped so it will active immediately anyway. It just means I always account for armour in every gunfight and plan killtimes accordingly.
And it also has a tactical use in avoiding most OHKs, therefore keeping OHK classes rare. The very existence of it keeps bow users from being ubiquitous, which without it they would be, and the game would be a disaster. Same for Gauss snipers. Likewise, it also makes dedicated melee classes impractical as it's almost always a 3-hit as a result, which I find a shame, but I know most people prefer the game without that class around.
I use it without apology on my pole class as melee protection. I understand people dislike it, but I don't find it all that powerful and I don't find it breaks the game half as much as retriever does which outright wins games. Even rapid fire is worse, as with the lack of recoil it's essentially CoD's Stopping Power in all but name, a perk that was universally seen as an awful idea, and very rarely do I see a top player complain about either of those.
Without C2's focus on energy management the whole concept of armour is pointless anyway as everyone is carrying a full energy tank of the stuff at all times, so we're talking compensating for people lacking twitch reflexes at worst and insurance versus OHKs at best. It was only really a tactical part of the game when you had to manage it in relation to other energy demands. Now it's Halo's regenerating shield in all but name, so I just treat it as such.
And it also has a tactical use in avoiding most OHKs, therefore keeping OHK classes rare. The very existence of it keeps bow users from being ubiquitous, which without it they would be, and the game would be a disaster. Same for Gauss snipers. Likewise, it also makes dedicated melee classes impractical as it's almost always a 3-hit as a result, which I find a shame, but I know most people prefer the game without that class around.
I use it without apology on my pole class as melee protection. I understand people dislike it, but I don't find it all that powerful and I don't find it breaks the game half as much as retriever does which outright wins games. Even rapid fire is worse, as with the lack of recoil it's essentially CoD's Stopping Power in all but name, a perk that was universally seen as an awful idea, and very rarely do I see a top player complain about either of those.
Without C2's focus on energy management the whole concept of armour is pointless anyway as everyone is carrying a full energy tank of the stuff at all times, so we're talking compensating for people lacking twitch reflexes at worst and insurance versus OHKs at best. It was only really a tactical part of the game when you had to manage it in relation to other energy demands. Now it's Halo's regenerating shield in all but name, so I just treat it as such.
-
Channing - Posts: 3393
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:05 pm
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1