Halo: Combat Evolved Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: On the apparent lack of "balance" in Halo CE weapons
  • Subject: On the apparent lack of "balance" in Halo CE weapons
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: On the apparent lack of "balance" in Halo CE weapons

When most H1 fans mention the re-introduction of the pistol in H3, we usually get the same objection to our proposal, which states something along the lines of the following: that this overly-powerful weapon wasn't balanced.

But what is it with the “balance”?

To me, the argument shouldn't end with that statement since it is only stating the obvious. As someone who believes the pistol should be re-introduced, I am ready and willing to admit that Halo:CE was an FPS that was clearly imbalanced to the point of freakishness; however, this doesn't necessarily lead one to the coclusion that the game was "flawed" in any way, since what you consider to be a flaw might actually be a fantastic theme to revolve gameplay around to others.

Thus, the more important question than balance is as follows:

"What is the nature of the gameplay when the set of weapons used by the players aren't “balanced” , and are heavily favored towards the use of an overly-powerful mid-range weapon?,like in H1"

Naturally, we should also ask the opposite:

"What is the nature of the gameplay when we omit an overly-powerful mid-range weapon in order to seek a “balance” of weapons?, like in H2, H3beta"

My point: good gameplay is a concept that can exist independent of balanced weapons.

In the end, it is strange to me that so many FPS videogames in development out there that are hell-bent on creating a “balance” in weapons—as if that were an end in itself, and that good gameplay will just magically follow.

*edited for grammar bc i am retarded


[Edited on 05.27.2007 12:58 PM PDT]

  • 05.25.2007 11:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I agree completely if developers wanted a perfectly balanced game, they would have 3 weapons.

A shotgun (close range)
A rifle (mid range)
A sniper (long range)

Quite frankly I would rather have a poweful weapon that was good at most ranges but still have other weapons have their own strengths and weaknesses. Which is exactly what Halo CE created. The pistoler can easily be taken out a number of ways if you utilize certain weapon's strengths.

Unfortunately I don't see bungie going back to one dominant weapon because of the very large fanbase that supports halo 2. Most people seem to forget that it was the Halo CE fans that caused halo 2 to have so big an impact that even non-gamers went out and bought the game.

  • 05.25.2007 12:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

6 weapons, 2 for each category, you need more weapons, otherwise, it gets boring

You'll have you're balance, but the game would be so boring

[Edited on 05.25.2007 1:19 PM PDT]

  • 05.25.2007 1:18 PM PDT

Skillet was here and referred to himself in the third person.

I loved the Halo 1 pistol but the scope was useless IMO. It has the same range without it and I got sick of exiting the scope every time I got hit anyway.

I would like to see it in Halo 3...but they could leave the scope behind.

  • 05.25.2007 6:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It was easier to get kills with the scope

  • 05.25.2007 9:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: RL King
It was easier to get kills with the scope


I disagree, I find it much easier to get kills without the scope because i can place my shots much more precisely. Plus, the scope was usefull to locate and shoot the farther targets.

  • 05.26.2007 2:27 AM PDT

"Do you think it's because we're awesome? I think it's because we're awesome."

"Man, you're camping my only spawn point? Who made this "Infection" gametype? I'm like a fricken ant someone threw into a spider farm! Except one of the spiders has a tank!"

Posted by: RL King
6 weapons, 2 for each category, you need more weapons, otherwise, it gets boring

You'll have you're balance, but the game would be so boring


they are saying what it would be like in a perfectly balanced game. Try reading stuff before you post about it.

  • 05.26.2007 9:25 AM PDT

"Do you think it's because we're awesome? I think it's because we're awesome."

"Man, you're camping my only spawn point? Who made this "Infection" gametype? I'm like a fricken ant someone threw into a spider farm! Except one of the spiders has a tank!"

Posted by: LlamaKing
Posted by: RL King
It was easier to get kills with the scope


I disagree, I find it much easier to get kills without the scope because i can place my shots much more precisely. Plus, the scope was usefull to locate and shoot the farther targets.


sorry for double posting, but WTF??? you said you disagree with him, and yet you did like the scope.

  • 05.26.2007 9:26 AM PDT

it seems like you guys are getting slightly off-topic...but whatever

i recall distance shots being more accurate when scoped.

yet i also recall the fact that you can still be accurate from a distance with no scope.

but to kill at maximum range with the pistol required the use of the scope bc ur shots (even if they were manually fired one at a time) wouldn't be exact enough to get the 3 shot kill.

and what i remember most was that the gameplay style of H1 favored firing from cover, scope or no scope.

  • 05.26.2007 10:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The idea of "balance" in H2/H3 is spawning with a sub-par weapon where virtually everyone who hasn't just spawned already has a better weapon than you.

CE gave everyone a fighting chance at spawn with the pistol. The least H2/H3 could do would be have the BR or Carbine at a starting weapon at spawn.

  • 05.26.2007 1:29 PM PDT

"Do you think it's because we're awesome? I think it's because we're awesome."

"Man, you're camping my only spawn point? Who made this "Infection" gametype? I'm like a fricken ant someone threw into a spider farm! Except one of the spiders has a tank!"

i wonder how many people would say the energy sword was balanced...... in multiplayer it had unlimited ammo, and that long range.

  • 05.26.2007 2:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well in Halo all the weapons were "overpowered" by most people's standards, yet if all the weapons were overpowered, wouldn't that make the game balanced? Oh well.


Posted by: Deno458
Posted by: LlamaKing
Posted by: RL King
It was easier to get kills with the scope


I disagree, I find it much easier to get kills without the scope because i can place my shots much more precisely. Plus, the scope was usefull to locate and shoot the farther targets.


sorry for double posting, but WTF??? you said you disagree with him, and yet you did like the scope.


I disagree with him on the fact that it was easier to get kills with the scope.

I never said i didn't like the scope, i just found it easier to get kills without the scope.

  • 05.27.2007 1:42 AM PDT

"Do you think it's because we're awesome? I think it's because we're awesome."

"Man, you're camping my only spawn point? Who made this "Infection" gametype? I'm like a fricken ant someone threw into a spider farm! Except one of the spiders has a tank!"

Posted by: LlamaKing
Well in Halo all the weapons were "overpowered" by most people's standards, yet if all the weapons were overpowered, wouldn't that make the game balanced? Oh well.


Posted by: Deno458
Posted by: LlamaKing
Posted by: RL King
It was easier to get kills with the scope


I disagree, I find it much easier to get kills without the scope because i can place my shots much more precisely. Plus, the scope was usefull to locate and shoot the farther targets.


sorry for double posting, but WTF??? you said you disagree with him, and yet you did like the scope.


I disagree with him on the fact that it was easier to get kills with the scope.

I never said i didn't like the scope, i just found it easier to get kills without the scope.


oh... sorry. but admit, it is kind of easier with the scope, I never use it for actually shooting someone, but the zoom was useful. maybe that is why they have binoculars in H2.......

  • 05.27.2007 11:35 AM PDT

Posted by: Tid3_w_b134ch
The idea of "balance" in H2/H3 is spawning with a sub-par weapon where virtually everyone who hasn't just spawned already has a better weapon than you.

CE gave everyone a fighting chance at spawn with the pistol. The least H2/H3 could do would be have the BR or Carbine at a starting weapon at spawn.



make sure u limit ur criticism to the H3beta, not H3 bc that didn't come out yet.

but otherwise, ur right.

the H3beta has a terrible spawn weapon. it really surprises me too bc they admitted that having the smg as a spawn weapon in H2 was a badidea. and when they thought they fixed it in the 1.1 update, they made the spawn weapon the BR.

clearly they have reasoned themselves out of making a mediocre, short range weapon ur spawn weapon in favor of a mid-range one.....so why did they take another step backwards with the MA5C AR in the beta?

well, lets think critically about the task of creating an ultimate spawn weapon. that is, imagine the consiquences of creating a weapon that does what a spawn weapon should do, which is to give players a fighting chance in every possible scenerio so that "power weapons" like the snipe or the rockets or the dual wielding don't dominate the game, and result in a disproprtionate amount of "unfair" deaths.

this would lead you to create something along the lines of the M6D pistol. a weapon that, in the hands of the right person, can be effective at close, medium, and long range. but this gun, by definition, isn't balanced, as it heavily favors the use of just one gun, which generally forces encounters to happen at medium to long range.

this ends up being a great example as to how good gameplay doesn't always mean that weapons necessarily have to be balance, and that in some cases, good gameplay might require you to do the exact opposite.

  • 05.27.2007 1:41 PM PDT

"Do you think it's because we're awesome? I think it's because we're awesome."

"Man, you're camping my only spawn point? Who made this "Infection" gametype? I'm like a fricken ant someone threw into a spider farm! Except one of the spiders has a tank!"

isn't halo supposed to be challenging?

  • 05.27.2007 3:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Deno458
isn't halo supposed to be challenging?
Not if the number 2 follows it.

  • 05.27.2007 3:25 PM PDT

Posted by: Deno458
isn't halo supposed to be challenging?

im not sure what you mean by this?

i think u might be saying that by giving u a mediocre, useless spawn weapon, that Bungie is somehow making a challenging game.

i actually think that a poor spawn weapon that promotes gameplay centered around charging the sight of your nearest opponent (you really don't have any other option with the AR) is less challenging than gameplay centered around an ultra-powerful, ultra-versatile mid-range weapon like the pistol, which has gameplay ramifications that tend more towards rewarding the more patient, experienced, and skilled players who learn how to use it.

  • 05.27.2007 4:19 PM PDT

there is a line of reasoning that i've developed in this forum which deserves attention.

i started the thread by questioning the point of balanced weapons.

i had asked: does good gameplay necessarily result from balanced weapons?

i would submit that halo1, which was unbalanced "to the point of freakishness" towards the use of one weapon in all scenerios, proved that it is possible to create good gameplay without balance.

then someone brought up the issue of the MA5C AR in the H3beta, and how it failed at being a good spawn weapon because it wasn't inneffective across the board. i naturally concluded that the only way Bungie could create a good spawn weapon (and therefore, good gameplay) would be to drop their persuit of "balanced" weapons, and to create something in the form of the pistol: that is, a weapon dominant at mid-range, and in the hands of the right person, capable of beating the snipe at long range as well as the shotgun at close range.


clearly this line of thought makes the general assumption that good gameplay is predicated on an excellent spawn weapon. some argued that not having a good spawn weapon makes the game more challenging (i think?). i'm not sure how this works since arming the MC with a toothpick might also make it challenging, but not necessarily fun.

i am also assuming that a good spawn weapon = weapon that works in close, medium, or long range. and because it must do all 3, it makes sense that its most exceptional use would be in the mid-range area.

does anyone want to challenge these assumptions in more than one sentence?

does anyone want to expand on them?

does anyone want to point out an assumption i don't see?

[Edited on 05.27.2007 4:51 PM PDT]

  • 05.27.2007 4:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Deno458
Posted by: RL King
6 weapons, 2 for each category, you need more weapons, otherwise, it gets boring

You'll have you're balance, but the game would be so boring


they are saying what it would be like in a perfectly balanced game. Try reading stuff before you post about it.


Excuse me, but I was addressing Llama's idea of having only three weapons to balance out the game, one for long, medium, and close range. I agree with his idea, but I said that there should be 2 weapons for each group to prevent the game from getting boring, try understanding what someone is saying before you contradict them

[Edited on 05.27.2007 5:53 PM PDT]

  • 05.27.2007 5:52 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Master Kim
Posted by: Deno458
isn't halo supposed to be challenging?
Not if the number 2 follows it.


True...

In my opinion, the pistol was balanced, it took skill to use it - when I got killed by it, I go "Damn that guy is good," not "Damn that pistol!"

I agree though, it's not all important to have perfect balance - obviously the rocket launcher will be more powerful than an Assault Rifle or something - just because people -blam!- about it doesn't make it imbalanced - hence, all that excess time is useless.

  • 05.27.2007 7:14 PM PDT

Halo 2/3 are unbalanced because every gun takes to long to kill, save the few power weapons. This makes the game a virtual rock-paper-scissors simulator.

  • 05.27.2007 8:34 PM PDT

"Do you think it's because we're awesome? I think it's because we're awesome."

"Man, you're camping my only spawn point? Who made this "Infection" gametype? I'm like a fricken ant someone threw into a spider farm! Except one of the spiders has a tank!"

Posted by: RL King
Posted by: Deno458
Posted by: RL King
6 weapons, 2 for each category, you need more weapons, otherwise, it gets boring

You'll have you're balance, but the game would be so boring


they are saying what it would be like in a perfectly balanced game. Try reading stuff before you post about it.


Excuse me, but I was addressing Llama's idea of having only three weapons to balance out the game, one for long, medium, and close range. I agree with his idea, but I said that there should be 2 weapons for each group to prevent the game from getting boring, try understanding what someone is saying before you contradict them


or, YOU could always read more than one part. He is saying that for complete balance, you would only have 3 weapons, and that it would be boring that way.

  • 05.27.2007 9:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I guess I'm confused by what "balance" actually means in the world of Halo. Spawning on Valhalla with an AR versus a sniper is my personal definition of imbalance. Conversely, spawning on Blood Gulch with the CE pistol versus a sniper is a thousand times more likely to result in a less disadvantageous battle. I'm not saying that the pistol will beat the sniper, but on average, the pistol will lose to the sniper considerably less than the AR would. In the H3 beta your time is better spent running to the nearest BR spawn, while in CE you would be better off fighting the sniper with your pistol. Which sounds more fun to you?

  • 05.27.2007 11:58 PM PDT

1.Arkham Asylum, 2.Mass Effect, 3.Halo CE, 4.Mass Effect 2, 5.Halo 2, 6.Splinter Cell Double Agent, 7.Gears of War 2, 8.Medievil, 9.Oblivion, 10.Crash Team Racing

Best balance would be to give just one weapon like pistol, that would kill the fun instantly, next is long and short range that would be boring too, next you add middleranges and then comes variations and nondamaging weapons.

In Halo1 pistol and shotgun gives almost unbeatable combo. Plasmas and needles you can dodge, Ar cant win either, rockets are rare and snipers can be avoided so you get closer. Halo2 Br and carbine are bit like pistol in Halo, but less bullets, shooting bursts, visible bullets and slightly less power make those much more funnier. Halo1 pistol has every possible advantage, 120 bullets, unlimited range with great accuracy, big power, no visibility, common. I think having weapons as powerful as in Halo would be ok if we could adjust healths but with 100% health it isnt that fun. I prefer having variation instead of balance, when i play game i want to think more than " Ok it doesnt matter which weapons i use or where i go, i just kill that guy, and that guy and that." so its just a reflex training, no thinking.

Star wars Republic Commando is well balanced, everyone starts with good rifle and pistol, you can find sniper, rockets, shotgun, bowcaster and 2 rifles. however i think its just lame. Levels are boring perfectly symmetrical neutral colored places, no vehicles, limited actions, too few boring weapons and overall athmosphere is almost zero.

[Edited on 05.28.2007 4:05 AM PDT]

  • 05.28.2007 3:55 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3