Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: The Only BR Thread
  • Subject: The Only BR Thread
Subject: The Only BR Thread

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Posted by: fifthderelicte
The hardcore players are the ones who stick around the longest. Also, Bungie changed several aspects of the BR midgame in H2, so they can do it now.


Ugh, such a bad generalization. Although I can't be too mad I've made a few bad generalizations as well this thread. The dichotomy simply isn't that easy. I know that myself and the group of people I played H2 regularly with were with that game to the very end. I doubt very much any one of us would describe ourselves as "hardcore" players. Speaking of which, I'll have to call Recon and tell him that he's considered a "hardcore" player now. That Highest Level 1 Master Sargent is going to look awesome now. One of the problems I had with how Halo 2 ended up was how weapon's balance was so dramatically changed after the 1.1 patch. I hated that the game now became dictated almost 100% by BRs especially in the presence of animation glitches. It really left a disdainful feel for that game when really it was a decent step in the right direction. It just didn't end in a good place.


Agreed. Every weapon's range is shorter, for the most part. Also, the effective range of an M16 at 200 meters is probably not on burst fire. I guarantee you the burst will be all over the place (at least the secondary and tertiary bullets).


Completely agree. After having a discussion with another person who has some first-hand knowledge of how a M16 operates we agreed that that distance mentioned by TBS only measures when the M16 is firing a single shot. However harping on that bit of variable doesn't really change what I said too much (or really at all) so it wasn't really worth going back and clarifying. I'm sure a M16A4 can shoot 500 meters. However even on a singe round shot it's not exactly easy to be able to hit a field target or actually come anywhere near it. I fire my M40A3 typically at a 500 yard line down range while in a full prone and I have one hella scope and it's still not easy for me to put shots dead on target.

I don't know if the H3 BR can shoot 500 meters. I don't know if Bungie has in their game that a BR bullet travels a certain distance and if it doesn't impact something it simply "disappears". I do know that the H3 BR can put shots and score kills at 190-200 meter range. So like I said about the H3 shotgun. It's realistic but it's probably been scaled back in order to promote weapon balance.


I think I get what you're saying, but not quite sure. Essentially, strafing and the likes would be so comprable to a random second, and (mostly) third bullet, there wouldn't be much distinction between a non-random spread and a random one. At decent distances, it is rather random, as hitting pixel perfect as well as dealing with off-host has a whole slew of problems that a non-random spread would essentially still be somewhat random.


Let me try to clarify. Say Bungie decides to make a static spread. They decide to make it really basic so they make it: Bullet 1 has a defined variation of point 1 and it deviate directly up from center (Zero degrees/12 o'clock). Bullet 2 has a defined variation of point 2 and it deviates down-right from center (135 degrees/4 o'clock). Bullet 3 has a defined variation of point 3 and it deviates down left from center (225 degrees/8 o'clock). I know that Bungie has done this. I know that every 3rd bullet on a BR spread will deviate down and right of where the person's reticule is. I also know that they cannot adjust for this because it would cause them to miss bullet 2 because it deviates to the other side. So I'd make sure that I'd try to strafe from my opponents left side to his right side since I know that the deviation will favor me doing so. Right now the way the BR spread mechanic works I have no idea if I'll gain an advantage. I could be strafing into the deviation making it easier for him to hit me. I might not.

Regardless a static spread of point 3 for the 3rd bullet might actually produce worse results than a dynamic spread would have for either player. Since the WCS for the 3rd bullet currently is point 38. I can't say that Bungie would definitely make a static spread as simple as 1,2,3 but I'd be surprised if they'd consider lessening it much more than that.

While I think I agree with you, for the most part, I guess a tightened spread would lessen those things. And even a non-random spread would depreciate the randomness. However, reading your earlier reply, I highly agree with you about carbines. BRs are too overrated and carbines are where the skill is at.

Lowering the spread mathematics would only slightly increase the range in which the spread is mitigated but really only slightly if my math isn't completely off. The difference between a point 2 spread and a point 25 spread at 20WUs isn't that drastic (from what I remember from my math 60 pages ago). However, people would still constantly be fighting at a range where spread could make a difference in the battle. The only time that is going to be completely a non-issue is if the spread is completely removed. Which we all know isn't going to happen and in my opinion shouldn't happen.

The H3 BR, just like the M6D, is very easy to use. Now before people start going nuts you have to realize that both weapon are pretty easy to use. Pretty big reticule. 2x zoom. Large clip. Good ROF. Extremely large range of effectiveness. Pretty easy to use. They are however very hard to effectively "master". More so the M6D since it fires a single shot. You don't score half-points with the M6D. Or the Carbine. I think that the Carbine really gets underused and it could fit nicely into a mid to mid-long role as long as it wasn't as readily available as the BR or have the same ROF as the BR. However, discussion about what I'd like to see the Carbine morph into really isn't what this thread is about so I'll stop there.

~B.B.

*edit* Oh....and page 100 -blam!-es...

[Edited on 11.11.2008 8:44 AM PST]

  • 11.11.2008 8:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: jorj17
  • user homepage:

I believe that the BR totally falls into what Bungie doesn't want (but i don't know what Bungie wants). It is a kingmaker weapon, dominating close range and long range. I wouldn't mind a tightened spread, as to increase the range, but a lowered power, so that any other weapon can beat it at close range, since the BR normally beats any other weapon if it four-shots, unless that weapon is a power weapon. If they did this, it would promote more consciosness over where certain things are, and not going rambo because you know that the BR beats all.

  • 11.11.2008 9:02 AM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: fifthderelicte
The hardcore players are the ones who stick around the longest. Also, Bungie changed several aspects of the BR midgame in H2, so they can do it now.


Ugh, such a bad generalization. Although I can't be too mad I've made a few bad generalizations as well this thread. The dichotomy simply isn't that easy. I know that myself and the group of people I played H2 regularly with were with that game to the very end. I doubt very much any one of us would describe ourselves as "hardcore" players. Speaking of which, I'll have to call Recon and tell him that he's considered a "hardcore" player now. That Highest Level 1 Master Sargent is going to look awesome now. One of the problems I had with how Halo 2 ended up was how weapon's balance was so dramatically changed after the 1.1 patch. I hated that the game now became dictated almost 100% by BRs especially in the presence of animation glitches. It really left a disdainful feel for that game when really it was a decent step in the right direction. It just didn't end in a good place.


There are a huge number of factors that made the Halo 2 BR garbage. You're focusing too much on just the spread fix. The Aim Assist was ridiculous in Halo 2, making the BR a 4-shot kill for anyone with opposable thumbs. I don't want that. I want 4-shot kills to be very difficult to pull off, but I want them to be difficult because aiming is difficult, not because the spread makes it impossible. Tighten the spread, decrease the bullet magnetism, and open the range up. The game is much, much too short ranged right now. Its focused almost exclusively on combat within 20 WU. Halo can be about so much more, and combat can be varied and skillful from all ranges. This isn't just for hardcore players, this is good for ALL players, new, old, skilled, unskilled. Greater variety is whats needed to keep Halo fresh; thats essentially what we're asking for. For the game to let us play where we want, how we want, and use our skill to be effective.

Just like children move on from tee-ball to slow-pitch to fast-pitch, its time for Halo players to move on from the hand-holding, close-range game and into a game that accurately portrays players individual skills and abilities.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Completely agree. After having a discussion with another person who has some first-hand knowledge of how a M16 operates we agreed that that distance mentioned by TBS only measures when the M16 is firing a single shot. However harping on that bit of variable doesn't really change what I said too much (or really at all) so it wasn't really worth going back and clarifying. I'm sure a M16A4 can shoot 500 meters. However even on a singe round shot it's not exactly easy to be able to hit a field target or actually come anywhere near it. I fire my M40A3 typically at a 500 yard line down range while in a full prone and I have one hella scope and it's still not easy for me to put shots dead on target.

I do know that the H3 BR can put shots and score kills at 190-200 meter range. So like I said about the H3 shotgun. It's realistic but it's probably been scaled back in order to promote weapon balance.


The number I gave was simply repeating from the weapon specifications. I never claimed that every shooter would be able to shoot at that range in every situation. It was meant to show that the Halo 3 BR is no where near realistic, thats it. I wasn't trying to argue with you; I was showing someone that the max effective range was much, much greater than Halo 3's BR. You turned into an attack to show us all how much you know about ballistics. I realize there are a large variety of factors that affect how far someone can shoot a rifle. However, none of us are cybernetic super-soldiers firing weapons that are 500 years in the future. Any "huge spread makes the BR realistic" arguments are ridiculous.

Everything in Halo is based somewhat on "realism." That doesn't mean its realistic. The realism argument is completely irrelevant when discussing game balance. If you want to keep discussing the "effective range" of the M16 go ahead, but I'm done with the subject.

  • 11.11.2008 9:08 AM PDT

Professional Gaming Coach
E-Sports For Life!

Honestly I blame the MLG community for turing the BR in h2 into a crutch they used to base their whole game off of. Look at most competitive shooters and you will see that they all do not function the same way halo games at the competitive level do. I understand everyones arguements about how the gun should be or the options we should have. Really these would not be nessacary if Bungie did not feel the need to insert counters in the game just to keep ppl from doing what they did in H2. I agree with the fix as it would make the game more like others. Looking at it from a competitive standpoint ( and we are talking about playing on LAN) the BR spread shouldnt be the main reason for your sucess and failure.

  • 11.11.2008 9:16 AM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
The H3 BR, just like the M6D, is very easy to use. Now before people start going nuts you have to realize that both weapon are pretty easy to use. Pretty big reticule. 2x zoom. Large clip. Good ROF. Extremely large range of effectiveness. Pretty easy to use. They are however very hard to effectively "master". More so the M6D since it fires a single shot. You don't score half-points with the M6D. Or the Carbine. I think that the Carbine really gets underused and it could fit nicely into a mid to mid-long role as long as it wasn't as readily available as the BR or have the same ROF as the BR. However, discussion about what I'd like to see the Carbine morph into really isn't what this thread is about so I'll stop there.
Why Bungie didn't make it a priority to include the complete set of weapons as possible starting weapons in custom options, I'll never understand. My brother and I thought it was a glitch when we went to set Plasma Rifles as starting weapons, and they weren't among the options.

You say that the BR and M6D are/were easy to use...as compared to what? The only weapon I think of that requires more skill (in Halo) is the sniper rifle.

Also, I see the 'easy to use, hard to master' quality of weapons like the BR and M6D as positive traits. I'm not sure if you were implying that this trait is negative, but I do know that I wish more of the weapons in Halo 3 shared this quality.

  • 11.11.2008 9:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Ugh, such a bad generalization. Although I can't be too mad I've made a few bad generalizations as well this thread. The dichotomy simply isn't that easy. I know that myself and the group of people I played H2 regularly with were with that game to the very end. I doubt very much any one of us would describe ourselves as "hardcore" players. Speaking of which, I'll have to call Recon and tell him that he's considered a "hardcore" player now. That Highest Level 1 Master Sargent is going to look awesome now. One of the problems I had with how Halo 2 ended up was how weapon's balance was so dramatically changed after the 1.1 patch. I hated that the game now became dictated almost 100% by BRs especially in the presence of animation glitches. It really left a disdainful feel for that game when really it was a decent step in the right direction. It just didn't end in a good place.

While I won't argue that generalizations can be wrong, and they almost never encompass everyone, I never intended for my generalization to be a universal. And generalizations often come from common sense and observation. Just because you produce an example or two of something going the other way does not mean it isn't generally true, thus the term generalization. In general (not across the board), those who stay with a game are typically those who are competetive with it. With Halo 3's addition of Forge and Theater, this may not be the case as much anymore, but the people who care the most about gameplay are most likely those who stick around longer, who are typically the better players.
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Completely agree. After having a discussion with another person who has some first-hand knowledge of how a M16 operates we agreed that that distance mentioned by TBS only measures when the M16 is firing a single shot. However harping on that bit of variable doesn't really change what I said too much (or really at all) so it wasn't really worth going back and clarifying. I'm sure a M16A4 can shoot 500 meters. However even on a singe round shot it's not exactly easy to be able to hit a field target or actually come anywhere near it. I fire my M40A3 typically at a 500 yard line down range while in a full prone and I have one hella scope and it's still not easy for me to put shots dead on target.
I was just pointing out that the functionality of the BR in comparison to its counterpart is completely warranted.
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I don't know if the H3 BR can shoot 500 meters. I don't know if Bungie has in their game that a BR bullet travels a certain distance and if it doesn't impact something it simply "disappears". I do know that the H3 BR can put shots and score kills at 190-200 meter range. So like I said about the H3 shotgun. It's realistic but it's probably been scaled back in order to promote weapon balance.
I agree. But those arguing for scale would most likely say that the system is wrong. While you scale back some weapons, certain weapons have essentially unlimited range. Whereas a sniper can shoot pretty far fairly accurately, some argue this balance is off in H3, and I don't know that I necessarily disagree. There is a domination of short and long range weapons, with a very small window for the BR to work exclusively. It seemingly has little advantage in this sense. I would not be against a weapon filling in the range from BR to sniper, but I certainly don't want a souped up BR that doesn't take much skill for the reward it gives.
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Let me try to clarify. Say Bungie decides to make a static spread. They decide to make it really basic so they make it: Bullet 1 has a defined variation of point 1 and it deviate directly up from center (Zero degrees/12 o'clock). Bullet 2 has a defined variation of point 2 and it deviates down-right from center (135 degrees/4 o'clock). Bullet 3 has a defined variation of point 3 and it deviates down left from center (225 degrees/8 o'clock). I know that Bungie has done this. I know that every 3rd bullet on a BR spread will deviate down and right of where the person's reticule is. I also know that they cannot adjust for this because it would cause them to miss bullet 2 because it deviates to the other side. So I'd make sure that I'd try to strafe from my opponents left side to his right side since I know that the deviation will favor me doing so. Right now the way the BR spread mechanic works I have no idea if I'll gain an advantage. I could be strafing into the deviation making it easier for him to hit me. I might not.

Regardless a static spread of point 3 for the 3rd bullet might actually produce worse results than a dynamic spread would have for either player. Since the WCS for the 3rd bullet currently is point 38. I can't say that Bungie would definitely make a static spread as simple as 1,2,3 but I'd be surprised if they'd consider lessening it much more than that.
I think I've got it now. I don't really know the math on all that stuff, so I can't really say. But creating a BR with no spread would make headshots more difficult, wouldn't give partial credit, etc. It would be more like the carbine, which IMO, takes MUCH more skill. With the hitscan the way it is, doing this would still require skill at ranges. And perhaps Bungie could up the ROF and decrease the damage...again, more like the carbine.
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Lowering the spread mathematics would only slightly increase the range in which the spread is mitigated but really only slightly if my math isn't completely off. The difference between a point 2 spread and a point 25 spread at 20WUs isn't that drastic (from what I remember from my math 60 pages ago). However, people would still constantly be fighting at a range where spread could make a difference in the battle. The only time that is going to be completely a non-issue is if the spread is completely removed. Which we all know isn't going to happen and in my opinion shouldn't happen.

The H3 BR, just like the M6D, is very easy to use. Now before people start going nuts you have to realize that both weapon are pretty easy to use. Pretty big reticule. 2x zoom. Large clip. Good ROF. Extremely large range of effectiveness. Pretty easy to use. They are however very hard to effectively "master". More so the M6D since it fires a single shot. You don't score half-points with the M6D. Or the Carbine. I think that the Carbine really gets underused and it could fit nicely into a mid to mid-long role as long as it wasn't as readily available as the BR or have the same ROF as the BR. However, discussion about what I'd like to see the Carbine morph into really isn't what this thread is about so I'll stop there.

~B.B.

*edit* Oh....and page 100 -blam!-es...

I agree. BR is way too easy to use in the areas where skill is the factor.

  • 11.11.2008 10:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: jorj17
  • user homepage:

Did anyone even read my post? :(

  • 11.11.2008 11:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: jorj17
Did anyone even read my post? :(

Yes. And I highly agree with you. Any more power (accuracy and range produce power, in a sense) to the BR while keeping its ease of use would make it too good for what little amount of skill is required. You essentially want it more like the carbine (though no spread, which it currently has), which is exactly what I would like to see. Less damage, higher ROF, etc. to create a skilled weapon that can be very powerful, but only in very skilled hands.

  • 11.11.2008 11:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
I don’t spend any time watching Youtube BR tests for two reasons. One, I have better things to do. Two, I don't have a problem with it and therefore do not feel the need to expose it's weakness. I know what the weakness is. It makes sense to me. The purpose it serves in the game play and the style with which they did it are absolutely logical. I'm sorry that your unending desire to have different sort of weapon and a different sort of game has clouded your vision.

This wasn't a question of what you do in your spare time (nice try to take the high road, but it won't work) but that the Battle Rifle is demonstrably random even when every variable is accounted for.

Well it makes sense to you but it doesn't make sense to me. I see no need to introduce uncontrollably random elements into the game. This isn't an unending desire for perfection or whatever lame strawman you tried to use, but a desire to see the game improved. If I didn't want the game to be improved - it IS a great game, but I think it could be better - then I wouldn't bother posting.

I will not come up with a better argument that "it is an approximation of realism," because that is one of only two arguments that apply.
Then good bye. Because that argument is so full of holes, and I've pointed out again and again about how realism has little impact on Halo nor should it, that I can't believe you still persist in thinking this. My conclusion is that you simply do not understand reason.

Halo is a science fiction/fantasy video game that has never taken itself too seriously. I understand that
Emphasis mine. You don't understand that or else you would stop making fallacial assertions like how the Battle Rifle is a good approximation of real life.

  • 11.11.2008 12:46 PM PDT

Multiplayer Gameplay
Halo:CE------------------Reach--------Halo2-----------------H alo3
Campaign Experience
Reach----Halo:CE-----------------ODST-----Halo2---------Halo3

Glad that Halo 3 garbage is dead, thanks to Reach.
Unfreakenbelievable!!

As long as the BR is a 3-bullet burst fire weapon, it will be easy to use. Nothing can change that. Yes, eliminating its randomness will make it more predictable, however, headshots will be just as easy. When I look at how easy a precision weapon is, I look at its headshot difficulty. Unfortunately, when Bungie made their design for the BR, they overlooked headshot difficulty completely. Now with Halo 3, they tried to fix it for all the "too overpowered" whiners by making 4-shotting harder, yet inconsistent. I get waaay more satisfaction out of single shot precision weapons, like the Carbine and Magnum (I have over 1500 Magnum kills). Yes, hitting your target with single shot weapons is easy, which could be why some say the M6D was easy. However, getting headshots require you to hit the head with 1 out of 1 bullet instead of 1 out of 3 like the BR.

I have always played Halo for the satisfaction factor of owning a guy in the face. One of the few games that I will remember from Halo 3 is when I had over 20 Magnum kills in a Multiteam default slayer on Construct. The BR doesn't give me this satisfaction and never will until it becomes a single shot weapon similar to the Magnum.

Unfortunately, the only way a single shot BR works is if it shoots straight so it can effectively ping Snipers, which sooo many people seem to be against. However, the BR is ineffective at Sniper ranges so many people don't even think about trying to ping a Sniper.

Just trying to make the 100th page.

  • 11.11.2008 3:45 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: Prodigy117
I can see your point of view. Basically you don't mind that the BR is a bit random especially at long range where it is very random. You also don't mind that there is some luck involved in BR fights due to its randomness. You also don't mind that the BR has quite a short maximum effective range because you don't want it to be too dominant, even though this then means other weapons that take minimal aiming skill and promote camping are forced upon the player. A lot of people prefer the CE pistol including me, we believe that this makes for a much better game and obviously are disappointed with the way the series has progressed.
If the BR spread was tightened, removed, or “de-randomized,” then the game becomes exclusively long range. I get that disappointment. This game was intentionally designed to prevent that. You can call it noob friendly, catering to casual fans, or whatever you like. By balancing the game between short, medium, and long range tactics, it definitely opens it up for more players to have some success. While you can control a game and dominate with long range shooting prowess, overall, every tactic has a counter. From Bungie’s perspective, that is pretty smart.

Games do get more realistic however this should not mean that the game should become less competitive and more random. As stated by Bungie the spread is not there for realism it is there to balance the weapon. Obviously it would make no sense that master chief can flip an elephant but then Bungie would also go to such lengths as to implement a random spread on the BR for the purpose of realism. You can say that anything is based on realism, for example you can say that all 3D games are an approximation of realism because we actually live in 3 physical dimentions. I think the only way you could apply the realism argument when referring to the BR spread would be if the whole game strictly adhered to realism, clearly it doesn't. Hopefully we can now stop using the realism argument when it comes to the random spread.

The only reason players dominate with the BR is that it is a headshot weapon. It is not difficult to weaken players with grenades and then finish them off. You can do this just as easily with a carbine and to be honest I don't find it much harder to do, yes you have to be a bit more accurate than the BR but at the same time there is less of a penalty for missing a shot because of the fast rate of fire. Even the magnum can be used to dominate lesser skilled players although it is a bit more difficult than the other two.

When it comes to higher level players there isn't much of a skill gap with the BR and it comes down to connection more than anything a lot of the time. This is also something that really needs to be fixed as hit registration online is very inconsistent.

The BR at the moment isn't all that skilled IMO as it is too easy to aim and too easy to get headshots. Ideally I would like for the BR to be a single shot weapon and have less auto-aim so that it is harder to use but more effective at range, I don't see any need for spread as the difficulty of aiming the weapon should balance it. It would be slightly harder to use in close range in my opinion due to having to rely on one bullet for a headshot and less auto-aim. It would still be nowhere near as good as the sniper at range because there would be no auto-aim at longer ranges and the bullet speed would be slower requiring leading. Yes such a weapon would be powerful but only if your good with it and close range weapons would still beat it as would long range weapons such as the sniper and laser.
I agree that the spread was not put there for realism. It probably worked more like this:

Developer 1: Hey, we need to tone down the BR. We don’t want the game to become too unbalanced in favor long range play.

Developer 2: Well, a real assault rifle rounds have a spread.

Developer 1: That’s not a bad idea. We could use a mathematical formula to give each of the three rounds a random deviation from the original round’s path.

Developer 2: Sure. We could set the spread to control the range so the weapon plays the role we want.

Of course, I’m being silly, but I imagine some sort of conversation like this took place. That is the limit of the realism. The purpose is balance. The way in which that was delivered was to mimic real behavior, but it was specified to get the result, not accuracy to the real life counterpart. As for skill level, I agree with you. The three round burst makes the BR a little easier to use. The carbine is a little more difficult, even with the quicker rate of fire. My point about the better players dominating with the BR, is not so much how they do it, just that they do. It’s a sort of backwards evidence that it works as designed. Look, like it or not, maintaining a tighter bell curve of skill is good for the game, not bad.

  • 11.11.2008 4:24 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: Breezy131
This wasn't a question of what you do in your spare time (nice try to take the high road, but it won't work) but that the Battle Rifle is demonstrably random even when every variable is accounted for.

Well it makes sense to you but it doesn't make sense to me. I see no need to introduce uncontrollably random elements into the game. This isn't an unending desire for perfection or whatever lame strawman you tried to use, but a desire to see the game improved. If I didn't want the game to be improved - it IS a great game, but I think it could be better - then I wouldn't bother posting.
Oh, I can’t take the high road when it comes to wasting time on-line. I can get lost in stupid stuff all the time. My point is that that particular issue is not relevant to me.

I am not attempting to put up any strawman. You want Halo to be geared toward mid to long range shooting. You want the Battle rifle to be a dominant high efficiency weapon. I understand. But, it is a versatile, crossover weapon. It has the ability to function in lots of different situations, more so than other weapons. It’s kind of a “jack of all trades, master of none.” It fits into the intertwined balance of all the weapons in the game.

I will not come up with a better argument that "it is an approximation of realism," because that is one of only two arguments that apply.
Then good bye. Because that argument is so full of holes, and I've pointed out again and again about how realism has little impact on Halo nor should it, that I can't believe you still persist in thinking this. My conclusion is that you simply do not understand reason.
Actually, I really just think you don’t understand what I’m saying. I made it pretty simple in the above post. If I said it was realistic, I meant that it was based in realism. Real life semi-automatic rifles have spread and BR’s have a spread. This can’t be debated. It’s a fact.

Halo is a science fiction/fantasy video game that has never taken itself too seriously. I understand that
Emphasis mine. You don't understand that or else you would stop making fallacial assertions like how the Battle Rifle is a good approximation of real life.
Relative to the rest of Halo 3, it is.

  • 11.11.2008 4:36 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: jorj17
I believe that the BR totally falls into what Bungie doesn't want (but i don't know what Bungie wants). It is a kingmaker weapon, dominating close range and long range. I wouldn't mind a tightened spread, as to increase the range, but a lowered power, so that any other weapon can beat it at close range, since the BR normally beats any other weapon if it four-shots, unless that weapon is a power weapon. If they did this, it would promote more consciosness over where certain things are, and not going rambo because you know that the BR beats all.
It's versatility is its undoing. Everyone has unbelievable expectaions of a weopan designed to be a "go between." I wouldn't have a problem with longer range, less damage. It really wouldn't upset the balance, and it would probably appease the long range players.

  • 11.11.2008 4:54 PM PDT

-

[Edited on 11.11.2008 5:14 PM PST]

  • 11.11.2008 5:08 PM PDT

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
If the BR spread was tightened, removed, or “de-randomized,” then the game becomes exclusively long range. I get that disappointment. This game was intentionally designed to prevent that. You can call it noob friendly, catering to casual fans, or whatever you like. By balancing the game between short, medium, and long range tactics, it definitely opens it up for more players to have some success. While you can control a game and dominate with long range shooting prowess, overall, every tactic has a counter. From Bungie’s perspective, that is pretty smart.


This is where we come down to the real argument. I personally think that the BR should have more range, no burst and be harder to use. Currently I feel the game revolves too much around close combat. Close range weapons are just too easy to use, there is hardly a skill gap at all. With melee there basically isn't any skill. A player who is familiar with FPSs can comptetently AR beatdown players after 2 or 3 games. This is what I dislike about close combat so much you can't have a battle, it just comes down to whos weakest, who has what weapons (obviously shotgun will win everytime) and host/connection. This is why I prefer ranged combat.

If they got rid of the beatdown lunge and made weapons like the shotgun harder to aim so that there was actually a chance of missing the guy running round the corner it would be much better. Think how much more fun the game would be if it was possible to come out on top in most situations with skill. At the moment there are just so many cheap ways to die that aren't a result of player skill at all, I really hate being finished off by ARs when Im absolutely miles away. A lot of the time I will run around a corner with a player chasing me and put a grenade in the players path, as the player exits the corner and is de-shielded by my grenade I will jump out at an awkward angle to make myself especially my head a harder target but with the AR the game aims the gun for the player and a couple of bullets that auto aim is enough to kill me before I can even get a shot off.

The game is just unneccesarily easy.

I agree that the spread was not put there for realism. It probably worked more like this:

Developer 1: Hey, we need to tone down the BR. We don’t want the game to become too unbalanced in favor long range play.

Developer 2: Well, a real assault rifle rounds have a spread.

Developer 1: That’s not a bad idea. We could use a mathematical formula to give each of the three rounds a random deviation from the original round’s path.

Developer 2: Sure. We could set the spread to control the range so the weapon plays the role we want.

Of course, I’m being silly, but I imagine some sort of conversation like this took place. That is the limit of the realism. The purpose is balance. The way in which that was delivered was to mimic real behavior, but it was specified to get the result, not accuracy to the real life counterpart. As for skill level, I agree with you. The three round burst makes the BR a little easier to use. The carbine is a little more difficult, even with the quicker rate of fire. My point about the better players dominating with the BR, is not so much how they do it, just that they do. It’s a sort of backwards evidence that it works as designed. Look, like it or not, maintaining a tighter bell curve of skill is good for the game, not bad.


Fair enough I agree with your statement about spread implementation.

I disagree about the skill curve, the game is just too easy at the moment. Better players dominate with the BR and sniper because this is the only way to dominate, this is where 90% of the skill is. To be honest I would actually say that the sniper is perhaps overpowered in this game. If you are good with it you can pretty much lay waste to an entire team of players.

  • 11.11.2008 5:46 PM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: Prodigy117
[quoteThis is where we come down to the real argument. I personally think that the BR should have more range, no burst and be harder to use. Currently I feel the game revolves too much around close combat. Close range weapons are just too easy to use, there is hardly a skill gap at all. With melee there basically isn't any skill. A player who is familiar with FPSs can comptetently AR beatdown players after 2 or 3 games. This is what I dislike about close combat so much you can't have a battle, it just comes down to whos weakest, who has what weapons (obviously shotgun will win everytime) and host/connection. This is why I prefer ranged combat.

If they got rid of the beatdown lunge and made weapons like the shotgun harder to aim so that there was actually a chance of missing the guy running round the corner it would be much better. Think how much more fun the game would be if it was possible to come out on top in most situations with skill. At the moment there are just so many cheap ways to die that aren't a result of player skill at all, I really hate being finished off by ARs when Im absolutely miles away. A lot of the time I will run around a corner with a player chasing me and put a grenade in the players path, as the player exits the corner and is de-shielded by my grenade I will jump out at an awkward angle to make myself especially my head a harder target but with the AR the game aims the gun for the player and a couple of bullets that auto aim is enough to kill me before I can even get a shot off.

The game is just unneccesarily easy.
Well, if you are Bungie, you want as many people to be able to enjoy the game as possible. If it is too skill intensive, only hardcore talented players could enjoy it. You wouldn't sell so many copies and you wouldn't be able to sustain the fanbase.

Fair enough I agree with your statement about spread implementation.

I disagree about the skill curve, the game is just too easy at the moment. Better players dominate with the BR and sniper because this is the only way to dominate, this is where 90% of the skill is. To be honest I would actually say that the sniper is perhaps overpowered in this game. If you are good with it you can pretty much lay waste to an entire team of players.
Well, speaking as someone who is not an elite player, I absolutely see what you are saying. But, let me spin it around. Close quarters combat is definitely the easier aspect of the game and there are aspects of Halo 3 that push you there whether you want to or not. But, it is really a big tease. You can get some kills against better players, but unless you are a versatile player and can incorporate the mid to long range game into your play, you lose more than you win. So the great players get frustrated that lesser opponants kill them and maybe, just maybe, beat them in a game once in a while. But, the game is designed well. The luck involved in playing is enough for interest, not enough for consistent winning if you can't bring some skill with it.

  • 11.11.2008 6:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Prodigy117
If they got rid of the beatdown lunge and made weapons like the shotgun harder to aim so that there was actually a chance of missing the guy running round the corner it would be much better. Think how much more fun the game would be if it was possible to come out on top in most situations with skill. At the moment there are just so many cheap ways to die that aren't a result of player skill at all, I really hate being finished off by ARs when Im absolutely miles away. A lot of the time I will run around a corner with a player chasing me and put a grenade in the players path, as the player exits the corner and is de-shielded by my grenade I will jump out at an awkward angle to make myself especially my head a harder target but with the AR the game aims the gun for the player and a couple of bullets that auto aim is enough to kill me before I can even get a shot off.

Your whole paragraph is a rant about how easy to aim the Assault Rifle is. The Assault Rifle is supposed to be powerful close range, although I do think the melee (for every weapon) should be toned down. However, close range weapons are almost always the easiest to aim for the devastation they inflict. Every game in this series has powerful and easy to aim close range weaponry, and making the Assault Rifle less powerful close range would be a bad thing.

And regarding this whole "skill" thing... The Assault Rifle does take skill, just a different type than the Battle Rifle.

The game is just unneccesarily easy.
Well, I do agree, but not because of the Assault Rifle. If I had to narrow it down, it's probably some combination of equipment, the Laser, and superball grenades. But it doesn't matter.

To be honest I would actually say that the sniper is perhaps overpowered in this game. If you are good with it you can pretty much lay waste to an entire team of players.
So true. How can you expect to fight a sniper at range with a weak, inconsistent range weapon (the Battle Rifle)?

[Edited on 11.11.2008 8:09 PM PST]

  • 11.11.2008 8:06 PM PDT

Posted by: Breezy131
Your whole paragraph is a rant about how easy to aim the Assault Rifle is. The Assault Rifle is supposed to be powerful close range, although I do think the melee (for every weapon) should be toned down. However, close range weapons are almost always the easiest to aim for the devastation they inflict. Every game in this series has powerful and easy to aim close range weaponry, and making the Assault Rifle less powerful close range would be a bad thing.

And regarding this whole "skill" thing... The Assault Rifle does take skill, just a different type than the Battle Rifle.


It's just a rant about how easy everything close combat is, there's no fun to it unless your the one with the shotgun. The AR isn't just powerful at close range it can quite easily finish off players at fairly long distances. For example runway/overshield spawn on the pit, numerous times I have been finished off by an AR from the other side of this area. This is just stupid and if they had a BR they quite possibly would've missed me or the 2 bullets that hit my leg wouldn't have been enough to kill me. You can hardly avoid any damage however much you move around when someone fires it.

Also in halo 1 all close combat weapons were harder to aim and the pistol was more powerful than the BR so if they messed up and you were good they died.

This is why I want the BR to be more consistent with greater range so that there is more of a skill gap and less luck at mid range and so that you can actually pose a small threat to that sniper at range instead of him having a full 3-4 seconds to stand there and no-scope your shields off.

[Edited on 11.12.2008 5:03 AM PST]

  • 11.12.2008 3:44 AM PDT

|^^^^^^^^^^^..||____
| The STFU Truck |||""’|""..__, _
| _____________ l||__|__|__|)
|(@)@)"""""""**|(@) (@)**| (@)
that is the most brilliant thing i have ever seen posted on the forums
AGGRO-BLUE~2nd in comand of the The Shadow League

such long posts head and eyes hurt but to make it simple br good noobs who complain about it=bad

  • 11.12.2008 4:10 AM PDT

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
If the BR spread was tightened, removed, or “de-randomized,” then the game becomes exclusively long range. I get that disappointment. This game was intentionally designed to prevent that. You can call it noob friendly, catering to casual fans, or whatever you like. By balancing the game between short, medium, and long range tactics, it definitely opens it up for more players to have some success. While you can control a game and dominate with long range shooting prowess, overall, every tactic has a counter. From Bungie’s perspective, that is pretty smart.


The levels are designed to allow for all types of combat. Even if the BR had infinite range, the game would not become exclusively long range. There are areas of every level where close range combat reigns supreme and there are areas where mid to long range combat would be best, but we aren't given the tools to play in that range. Whats the point of huge open levels if you're just forced into a small area to fight in. Why not just make the level small to begin with?

What would happen if the BR range was increased and spread decreased is that players would be forced to play smarter. No longer could you run around out in the open areas of the level without a care in the world, you would have to be a smarter player. However, only the extremely skilled players would be able to score 4 or 5 shot kills consistently at range, so it wouldn't affect the lower skilled players who are only interested in AR spraying and beatdowns, especially considering when you don't spawn with a BR.

Tightening up the BR and increasing its range would open up the game more, would allow players to engage at all ranges and would provide a much more varied experience. Think about the games you play right now in Halo 3. I can guarantee the majority of them involve players seeing each other across the map and figuring out a way to get close enough to actually do damage to the other team. It usually involves one team getting a sniper rifle, holing up in an area, and waiting for the other team to break their setup. This isn't dynamic, this isn't skilled and its not variety. Everyone plays each map almost exactly the same. This is because of the failure of Bungie's weapon balance to facilitate player-created variety. Players are forced into playing one way. Thats bad for everyone.


Posted by: Old Papa Rich
I agree that the spread was not put there for realism. It probably worked more like this:

Developer 1: Hey, we need to tone down the BR. We don’t want the game to become too unbalanced in favor long range play.

Developer 2: Well, a real assault rifle rounds have a spread.

Developer 1: That’s not a bad idea. We could use a mathematical formula to give each of the three rounds a random deviation from the original round’s path.

Developer 2: Sure. We could set the spread to control the range so the weapon plays the role we want.

Of course, I’m being silly, but I imagine some sort of conversation like this took place. That is the limit of the realism. The purpose is balance. The way in which that was delivered was to mimic real behavior, but it was specified to get the result, not accuracy to the real life counterpart.


We understand why they did it. Our argument is that there is a much better way to do it. Make the BR harder to use at long range, don't make it impossible; that only frustrates skilled players. Bungie's version of balance is not balanced at all. In fact, its grossly imbalanced in the favor of newer players.

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
Look, like it or not, maintaining a tighter bell curve of skill is good for the game, not bad.


No, its absolutely not. Look at the most popular sports in the world; soccer, football, golf, basketball. Do these organizations make the game easier so that new players can look as good as pros? No, they set the bar unacheivably high, and allows players to get as high as their skill, talent, and hard work take them. They don't make the hoop bigger and lower, they don't make golf holes wider and the courses shorter, they don't put weights on faster players legs in football. And guess what? Newer players still flock to these games in the millions, because there is something to acheive, something to strive for.

In terms of Halo, the leveling system would be able to function much more accurately with a wider, higher skill curve. It would also perform its function better; to assure that players don't get unevenly matched with the more skilled players.



[Edited on 11.12.2008 9:21 AM PST]

  • 11.12.2008 9:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Prodigy117
The AR isn't just powerful at close range it can quite easily finish off players at fairly long distances. For example runway/overshield spawn on the pit, numerous times I have been finished off by an AR from the other side of this area. This is just stupid and if they had a BR they quite possibly would've missed me or the 2 bullets that hit my leg wouldn't have been enough to kill me. You can hardly avoid any damage however much you move around when someone fires it.

Not really. Only by burst firing is its range actually increased, but then you have to fire it slowly enough that the other player will almost always have enough time to get away or kill them with a better weapon.

Also in halo 1 all close combat weapons were harder to aim and the pistol was more powerful than the BR so if they messed up and you were good they died.
Not much harder, and in every case they were more powerful than in Halo 3, so they were more forgiving to missed shots. You can still kill someone with a BR close range if you couple it with a grenade or melee. Just like in Halo 1.

This is why I want the BR to be more consistent with greater range so that there is more of a skill gap and less luck at mid range and so that you can actually pose a small threat to that sniper at range instead of him having a full 3-4 seconds to stand there and no-scope your shields off.
But making it more consistent at range wouldn't make it better at close range at all. It's already consistent close range.

  • 11.12.2008 12:45 PM PDT

Posted by: Breezy131
Not really. Only by burst firing is its range actually increased, but then you have to fire it slowly enough that the other player will almost always have enough time to get away or kill them with a better weapon.


Trust me I have been finished off at some ridiculous ranges with the AR by not so good players. I have also seen a video posted somewhere on these forums where a player kills a player on the pit from tower to tower with an AR in less than 2 clips. Thats accross the entire map in less than 2 clips! Not using bursts either from what I recall.

Not much harder, and in every case they were more powerful than in Halo 3, so they were more forgiving to missed shots. You can still kill someone with a BR close range if you couple it with a grenade or melee. Just like in Halo 1.


You have to consider the speed at which it is possible to kill someone with the pistol in halo 1. I can hardly remember getting wrecked by an AR ambush in halo 1 (which is a lot of players bread and butter strategy in halo 3) because even if you missed a couple of shots with the pistol you could still kill them and they couldn't rely on beating you down from silly distances either. The map design also meant that AR rushing was far less effective. Melee is near useless in halo 1 and grenades can't be used like they can in halo 3 due to longer fuse times, you can't just skill-lessly spam them round every corner so your opponent can't avoid them and is a one-shot for the easy burst headshot.

But making it more consistent at range wouldn't make it better at close range at all. It's already consistent close range.

Let me clarify, what I mean is that I would like to increase the aiming skill gap where the skill is at now, medium to long range. I am aware this would have little effect at close range. Increasing the consistency and range of the BR would do this, I would also like to see some reduction in auto-aim to go along with this. Ideally the BR would be single shot.

[Edited on 11.13.2008 2:42 AM PST]

  • 11.13.2008 2:41 AM PDT

Sgt. Avery Johnson is actually Jesus in shapeshifter mode

I like the BR, The Mlg Likes it, Everyone likes it
End of Story.

P.S: this doesn't involve 12 year olds complaining of how you massacred them.

  • 11.13.2008 4:36 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
The levels are designed to allow for all types of combat. Even if the BR had infinite range, the game would not become exclusively long range. There are areas of every level where close range combat reigns supreme and there are areas where mid to long range combat would be best, but we aren't given the tools to play in that range. Whats the point of huge open levels if you're just forced into a small area to fight in. Why not just make the level small to begin with?

What would happen if the BR range was increased and spread decreased is that players would be forced to play smarter. No longer could you run around out in the open areas of the level without a care in the world, you would have to be a smarter player. However, only the extremely skilled players would be able to score 4 or 5 shot kills consistently at range, so it wouldn't affect the lower skilled players who are only interested in AR spraying and beatdowns, especially considering when you don't spawn with a BR.

Tightening up the BR and increasing its range would open up the game more, would allow players to engage at all ranges and would provide a much more varied experience. Think about the games you play right now in Halo 3. I can guarantee the majority of them involve players seeing each other across the map and figuring out a way to get close enough to actually do damage to the other team. It usually involves one team getting a sniper rifle, holing up in an area, and waiting for the other team to break their setup. This isn't dynamic, this isn't skilled and its not variety. Everyone plays each map almost exactly the same. This is because of the failure of Bungie's weapon balance to facilitate player-created variety. Players are forced into playing one way. Thats bad for everyone.

We understand why they did it. Our argument is that there is a much better way to do it. Make the BR harder to use at long range, don't make it impossible; that only frustrates skilled players. Bungie's version of balance is not balanced at all. In fact, its grossly imbalanced in the favor of newer players.

No, its absolutely not. Look at the most popular sports in the world; soccer, football, golf, basketball. Do these organizations make the game easier so that new players can look as good as pros? No, they set the bar unacheivably high, and allows players to get as high as their skill, talent, and hard work take them. They don't make the hoop bigger and lower, they don't make golf holes wider and the courses shorter, they don't put weights on faster players legs in football. And guess what? Newer players still flock to these games in the millions, because there is something to acheive, something to strive for.

In terms of Halo, the leveling system would be able to function much more accurately with a wider, higher skill curve. It would also perform its function better; to assure that players don't get unevenly matched with the more skilled players.



QFT.

  • 11.13.2008 5:37 AM PDT

dude are you stupid!? theres NOTHING in the history of halo that takes more practice than the halo2 br i bet you cant even bxr can you? what about bxb?.... quadshot!? no you suck a** kid it took me a year to get the quadshot down
and lck of instant hit detection!? wtf is that supposed to mean? i know on halo2 if a shot a kid in the head on swat it was a headshot hes dead no questions but idk how many time on halo3 swat where ill shoot the kid in the head 4 5 even 7 times in the head (as hes running towards me) but they dont count them bc of that bull sh** lead them while they are moving confuses itself and doesnt know the shot are coming from the front not the side

so the next time one of you mother fu**ers want to dis the halo2 br why dont you actually PLAY halo2 and not just hear about it from your staff captain friend that sucks at halo2 and 3

  • 11.13.2008 7:24 AM PDT