- Prodigy117
- |
- Noble Member
Posted by: Breezy131
I doubt that it's true, but I don't really care, because that scenario will never crop up in Matchmaking and two clips is a lot.
It just shouldn't have that sort of range it's stupid. 5 clips would be sensible. The weapon barely needs to be aimed at all I don't know why your arguing about it, it's a poor weapon.
At this point I'm going to question whether you even played Halo 1 (not PC, for Xbox).
The Assault Rifle is in fact more powerful in Halo CE. You could not rely on the Pistol close range. Assault Rifle, Plasma Pistol, Plasma Rifle, and Shotgun are significantly stronger in Halo 1 than 3; they did more damage and the plasma weaponry had a stun effect. If you tried using the Pistol close range against someone with one of those weapons you were screwed. It's pretty much the same scenario today.
I will not say I played the game competitively but I did play it for a good year with my brother and friends on a regular basis. Primarily we played FFA but we also played some team games. I think this is reasonable enough experience to comment on the game.
The pistol was obviously at a disadvantage close range but it was certainly possible to win with it. Relative to the BR it was much more powerful at close range. The situation you often get in halo 3 is someone charging with an AR short-mid range from your blindspot and if you don't 4 shot them straight way there is a high probability you will die. This just would not happen in halo 1 plus from what I recall the AR was actually a bit harder to aim. All I am pointing out is that the balance has shifted in halo 3 so that there is more emphasis on CQB and the close range weapons are more powerful and easier to use in relation to the mid range weapon, surely you won't attempt to argue this. Yes the plasma rifle stunned players but it did take a bit of skill not like the halo 3 AR beatdown combo.
If you watch some MLG Halo 1 you will see that they don't use the AR much at all even though it is allowed because its not that effective, they do use the plasma rifle and shotgun a bit but they have to play smart to have any success with them.
As for map design... Did you seriously only play Blood Gulch, or something? Pretty much every map is great for close range combat or has sections of the map (like the tunnels on Sidewinder) that suited CQB well. No one rushes with an Assault Rifle, by the way, because they don't have to in order to get a kill.
Useless melee? Just because it's less powerful and you have to actually aim it, doesn't make it useless.
Grenade spamming? Ever heard of 'nade points'? I doubt it; and you also seem to be forgetting that you can carry only half the grenades in Halo 3 that you can in Halo 1.
Primarily Hang em High but we played a variety of maps and rarely did I have an experience where players whored the AR with little skill like they do in halo 3 and have much success.
The melee in halo 1 was not that powerful, even double melee I don't think was that powerful but again, skillful. There was hardly any lunge and as you say you have to aim it so therefore it is far less useful when it comes to close combat making shooting much more powerful.
In halo 3 there is lots of nade spamming and as there is such a short fuse time it doesn't take much skill, especially when you bounce them off the floor into rooms so they explode in mid-air, grenades are way overused and under-skilled in halo 3. You just can't approach every situation in halo 1 like this because usually your opponent can avoid the grenades. You pick up grenades from spawn points and dead bodies constantly in halo 3 there is no shortage. I have heard of nade points but I didn't know of the term when I played halo 1 because of the lack of a broad player base. Regardless nades in halo 3 is 90% common sense and does not require this knowledge.
That's great. But so far you seem to be favoring making the BR the one weapon to rule them all, judging from your faulty recollection of Halo 1 and how you think your inaccurate account of the M6D should be brought back.
No my suggestions would not affect close range functionality but would increase consistency at mid range and effectiveness at long range providing the player has the skill to use it to its potential.
If the M6D really was the way you described (great at close range, medium range, and long range) then I wouldn't want it back and Halo 1 wouldn't have been that good. But thankfully that isn't how things really are.
I don't think I described it as great at close range, If I did what I meant was powerful enough to have a chance. It was good at medium and long range.