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

People are complaining about BR's?
I love it really hated it back then but now its great.

  • 07.22.2008 7:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The BR is the best weapon on the game it don't need any changes if ur p'd off bout people ownin u with it den one simple thing learn how to use it or jus keep on cryin bout it coz da br is sik

  • 07.22.2008 7:20 AM PDT

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: BakedPotatoLive
So your argument against the "more skilled" player winning every time is that it would be boring? You have to be joking. In an equally fair environment with no variation in its properties, you want the winner to be determined by chance? By luck? I, and many others have said this time and time again, but your ignorance and bias covers your eyes as well as your brain: luck is no substitute for skill. Intentionally implementing elements of chance into a competitive shooter just to make the game less boring is balancing; it's madness.


Nice strawman.

I never said I wanted the winner to always be determined solely by luck. However, I did say that luck will always play some part in the equation. The "better" skilled player should win according to their skill over the other player. That still happens in Halo 3. Shockingly, I know. However, if the game contained no luck or no chance and it was just a straight battle of who is "better skilled" then arguably the game would be determined before it even started. Just like if baseball, football, soccer, or golf were only played solely on paper the winners would already be determined because of which team/player is higher skilled. However, when you introduce a degree of luck or chance into an equation, it makes the outcome uncertain. Not so uncertain that it's a complete "coin-toss", since the "higher skilled" teams typically do win the majority of the time, however it does leave room for "upsets". Oh, and for the record, Halo is NOT a competitive shooter. It never has been and probably never will be. You can force it into acting like a competitive shooter, but it NEVER has been one by default. Second, if you are arguing against BR spread because it installs a random factor into a weapon than you obviously would be against bullet spread in the AR, shotgun, and Mauler. I know I keep repeating this argument but none of you, and I mean NONE OF YOU, have come up with an adequate rebuttal to it. Go ahead and try to tell me that those weapons "should" have bullet spread and I'll tell you that the BR should have bullet spread as well. Let's look at something else you just said:

Intentionally implementing elements of chance into a competitive shooter just to make the game less boring is balancing

Yep, you're right. Intentionally implementing elements of chance makes the game less boring and creates weapons balance. Glad we could agree.


Well then stop trying to belitte and condescend other members opinions.


There are times when opinions are all you can use. I can also show how idiotic your opinion is as well as offer a counter-opinion. One that has better logic. Which is what I've been doing this entire thread. It's people's opinion that the BR shouldn't have bullet spread because randomness has no place in Halo. That opinion is obviously idiotic because randomness has always had a place in Halo, since they've been using it to create weapon's balance from the beginning. It's people's opinion that the BR should operate the same way regardless of distance. That opinion is obviously idiotic because all weapons operate differently depending on distance. I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.


Yes, I would.(want the BR to consistently 4SK at 18WUs)


Great. Have "perfect aim" and you can have a consistent 4SK at 18WUs. Until you can have "perfect aim" which you can't; it is quite illogical to expect a consistent or really a single 4SK at that distance. Just like I don't expect the shotgun to consistently kill at 7WUs either.

I however would definitely NOT want people to get a consistent 4SK at 18WUs. Why? Because that distance is huge. If you could get a consistent 4SK at that distance it would allow people to just sit back with a BR and kill at a range where your only defense would be either another BR or a sniper rifle. This bland, boring, broken gameplay sounds familiar. It's called Halo 2. Something, thankfully, isn't the case any longer.


That's nice to know.


Isn't it though? At 18WUs even through the scope, you cannot see whether or not you even still have the 'red dot' because the distance is so great. To expect a 4SK let alone a consistent 4SK from this range is like asking for flying warthogs. Sounds fun, but it would be complete crap.


And apparently many others do aswell (have a problem with the BR in H3).


Yes, and what do we like to call those people? The minority.


Really? The closer you are, the easier it is to aim and hit your target? What a shocking revelation Berserker.


I know isn't it? And yet some people still can't seem to understand it. Craven for one. He can't seem to understand that the further away from your target you get, the harder it is to have "perfect aim". Let's look at the sniper rifle for example. When you are close to your opponent, their head appears a lot bigger...especially when you look at it through what we call "a scope". Now, at this distance it's easy to get a headshot because there are several areas on the target you can aim for that will still achieve you "perfect aim". Now lets move that sniper way way across Standoff. Shockingly....the area on the target in which the sniper has to aim in order to achieve "perfect aim" and get a 1SK is incredibly smaller. So much so that it would take a great deal of skill to consistently hit such a small target. Hmm...kinda sounds like how the BR in H3 operates. The closer you are to your opponent, the easier to 4SK. The further away, the harder. Not a difficult concept.


Holy crap, I think he's onto something.


I know. I'm right about a lot of things.


What is with all the obvious statements?


Because sadly operating under the assumption that people can understand anything that isn't spelled out for them hasn't been working too well so far. Christ I had to spend 2 pages trying to explain to Craven what the concept of "perfect aim" is. Sadly, I still don't think he understands. At least Foahda got it in like the first 2 minutes. I've given up on trying to explain it to Craven, well at least for now.


Which should be at medium range, or 18WU's. That is currently not the case.


Oh no no. You're wrong. You can (theoretically) mitigate bullet spread up till 18WUs. *YOU* just can't do it. You don't have perfect aim. Neither do I if that makes you feel better. However, if the math nerds are correct, it is possible. So until you can do the math and prove to me that you cannot mathematically achieve a 4SK at 18WUs, it still is the case. Sorry Charlie.


If the target is stationary, I fail to see how this perfect aim argument applies. If the medium ranged target is standing still, the reticle is fairly simple to line up, and it should yield a 4SK every time. This is currently not the case.


Ohz ta noez! Not you too. If the target it stationary makes little difference about what constitutes "perfect aim". At 18WUs, lining up the reticle with the BR to achieve a 4SK is obviously not simple to do. Just like lining up the reticle of the sniper rifle from the distance of completely across Standoff isn't exactly easy to do either. The degree of precision required to aim those weapons at those distances are simply not easy to do. It's easy to line up the reticle on the target. It's not easy to line up the reticle to give you a 4SK.


So because the good players are still good players, you derive that the BR is working as intended? What a great conclusion to come to, BB.


No, nice strawman.

Craven was implying that the randomness in H3 has somehow made good players bad. That's not the case. The good players are still good. The bad players are still bad. Putting me against an MLG pro in a BR duel would still produce an outcome of him beating me more times than I would beat him. Why? Because skill still makes a difference, even in H3.

I have been banned for the last two weeks, and I come back to see that you are still posting your self-righteous, arrogant dribble. You constantly belittle other members opinions and views, labelling them as "wrong". I wouldn't expect someone that undermines others opinions to say something along the lines of--

I'm going to give you a little hint here. OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG. Case in point. It is my opinion that the world is flat. That opinion is obviously wrong. I can label people's opinions as wrong if they are just that, wrong. Which a lot of them in this thread have been. When it's people's opinion that "randomness has no place in Halo". That's a wrong opinion. When it's people's opinion that "Halo is a competitive shooter (by default)". That's a wrong opinion. See where I'm going with this? Now there are some things that are completely subjective. Like for example, what one person considers "mid range". Take you for example. You think 18WUs in H3 is "mid range". I don't. I would classify it as "mid-far". Again, that's very subjective because "mid range" is obviously a prima facie subjective term. It is subjective to what is considered close range and what is considered far range.

[continues]

  • 07.22.2008 7:41 AM PDT

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.

[continued]

Please, do us all a favor and step off your elitist chair for a while. I have never met such a persistant person, then when faced with such potent evidence continues to debate and discuss. I don't know how you have survived, but it may have something to do with how you pick and choose which points and arguments to rebut. But on the other hand, never have I met such an arrogant person who believes that those opinions disputing his are null and void. Your anti-MLG bias is ridiculous, and down right shameful.

Uh, no. My elitist attitude is just fine. Actually, there seems to be several other people that seem to like it. At least 2 people have consistently sent me PMs telling me how much enjoyment they are getting out of watching me dismantle and dispatch your so-called "potent evidence". Of course these are also people that seem to have enough common sense to figure out what I mean by saying "perfect aim". Sadly, Craven isn't one of those people. Neither is DanBauer. I only think that the opinions that are wrong are null and void. Foahda, who raised a good point about how in H3 you cannot physically do something to limit BR spread like you can with the AR, has a legitimate complaint and I validated it as such. However, there are still other weapons, such as the shotgun in H3 which spread cannot be physically mitigated by player action. So it's still in the middle. I can obviously make argument for or against it.

So while you think that I am completely opposed to all things being debated with me that is obviously not the case. I'm just completely opposed to all things that are being debated that are wrong. You'd do well to stay away from those and find something that is actually a legitimate claim.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.


I've always liked this quote. I also find it funny that you'd try to use it against me. Here's another quote, and this one is from me, "find a legitimate argument and stop wasting my time with your crap".

~B.B.

  • 07.22.2008 7:42 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Epic v1
First of all, I just want to say that I love what Bungie has done with the BR, making it a fair, yet still powerful weapon.

Now that that's done with, I want to address the whiners and complainers about the BR, and give them my opinions, and maybe it will change their thinking a little.

As many people have said before me, the BR was WAY too powerful of a weapon in Halo 2, and I agree completely. Because of the glitch named BXR, and BXB, the BR was the ideal close range, medium range, and long range weapon. It was intended to be a medium, perhaps long range weapon, but people saw around that. In Halo 3 however, not many people can so call "out BR" someone very close range when their opponent is weilding a sword, shotgun, or even AR. If you can, I congradulate you, but back to the matter.

The new and improved BR is fine the way it is. The recoil, and neccessity to "lead" shots from far range makes it a harder weapong to use. However, it also makes it balanced, and realistic. What kind of bullet would hone in on someone's head 200 feet away? Honestly, the Halo 2 BR took relatively low if any skill to use at all, because all you had to do was aim your crosshair at the opponents head, and almost every shot would hit. In Halo 3, you actually have to somewhat use your brain as to how far they are away, and where you should aim.

I applaud Bungie for making the BR a much more balanced weapon, and I also have one final argument. For all the people who say the BR should be Halo 2 style or whatever, I have a news flash for you. Halo 3 IS NOT Halo 2. Plain and simple. It's a new wave of multiplayer action, head to head game, and if you don't like it... well then go play Halo 2.

Thanks for hearing my input :]
Hope it helped


Very well thought out post, and addresses most of the issues with BR and its changes sadly, you neglect to talk about the main reason why most good players are complaining. We are not complaing because of having to lead shots or any of the other reasons you stated. What we are complaining about is the radomness, what many people do not know is that the BR while shooting, will randomly and in no set order, "drop" a bullet.

Now many of you say what does it mean to "drop" a bullet. What it means is that out of the 3 shot burst, 1 of the shots may miss the target. Now I am not talking about dropping bullets from outside the BR's intended range, I am talking about the BR missing shots inside its intended range (i.e. when the cursor turns red). This is a serious problem.

Again many people will say, well what the difference if one shot out of three doesnt hit. Well that one bullet can be the difference between getting the kill and getting killed. Because the BR is set up to be able to 4 shot it takes all 12 bullets to hit for the person to die, now if even one of the bullets miss it ends up in the player having to take another shot.

So here it is in a real scenario, say two people are running sraight each other at full shields, both shoot at the same exact second. both get off 4 shots at the same time and place on the other player. And in the end one player dies while the other is left with no shields. Now one player is confused as to why he did not kill the other person, but yet he died. So he assumes that he must have missed a shot, an moves on, but in fact he did not miss a shot (well at least he shouldnt have missed the shot). But since the BR randomly drops bullets, his BR was in capable of 4 shotting, while the other persons was capable of this task.

So basically if you have two players who can consistantly 4 shot, the game basically comes down to which player got lucky, and was allowed 4 shot by the game. So now you know the real reason why people are complaining. Or at least the good players who actually understand the game and its design. Thank you and have a nice day.

PS.- In no way am I asking Bungie to change the BR or anything of that matter. I am completely satisfied with the way it is right now. I just thought people should know the facts before they post.

  • 07.22.2008 9:22 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

=]

  • 07.22.2008 12:17 PM PDT

Trying hard or hardly trying?

GT: oxI Sonic Ixo

pretty enjoyable and entertaining!

  • 07.22.2008 12:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Will you to take your domestic dispute back inside? I don't care to read walls of text that can be summarized in a few sentences.

And my opinion on the matter: The battle rifle was implemented into the game to do what it does. Bungie intended it to function as you find it and if your not skilled with it... I suggest you load up social slayer and start practicing.

  • 07.22.2008 1:30 PM PDT

"Don't take life too seriously, nobody gets out alive anyway." Goes for anything I say; anything I do, doubly so.

Need assistance with anything? Shoot me a PM. Duardo's FAQ on User Titles. | A word from 54.

All right, BB. I do this in the spirit of friendly debate.

[wall approaches]

To begin, I'd like to question your theory that Halo is not a 'competitive shooter.' Perhaps you're equating 'competitive shooter' with MLG or some other subset of this community or that verbiage with being ultra-refined, but Halo is competitive, even on a non-professional level. There is, and (almost) always will be a winner, and a loser. There are rankings, ratings, levels; people off all skills strive to win and be the best. We've all seen the shenanigans people will do to win, level up, XP boost, etc. Perhaps some of us will never be professional-level, but that doesn't mean I don't like or want to win. This can be assumed for other people as well.

On to your point of spread being a factor in other weapons, yes, this is 100% true.

Wait for it...

I AGREE WITH THE BR HAVING A SPREAD AND FURTHER, THE SPREAD BEING A NECESSITY. I just don't think the spread on the BR needs to be this big. At 18 WU, it is NOT theoretically possible to get a four-shot kill every time, even with pixel-perfect, dead-accurate aim.

If y=dtan(x), where d is the distance between target and gun in WU, and (x) is the deviation in degrees off the vector the gun was fired on, then we see that...

y=18tan(.38º) for the outlier on the third bullet.
.1194=18tan(.38º). The Spartan model's headbox is .094 WU across. Therefore, it is not 100% consistent, even on LAN. In fact, the spread cannot be greater than .295º to theoretically work every time (at 180 ft, 18 WU.)
On top of that, a Bungie employee has stated that the BR shouldn't be used for ranges over 30 WU. One can infer from that remark that the BR is designed to be used inside of 30 WU. (Source, Luke M. Smith and Tyson Green, June 20, 2008. It should also be noted that the formula for bullet margin of error here has been proved wrong, confirmed by JonnyOThan.)

Right now, even the first bullet is iffy at 30 WU (assuming .15º spread, the margin for error is .078 WU.) Needless to say, aim (especially on a pixel-precise basis,) is way too finicky for Live play. Even if both players have picture-perfect aim, the host's shot would register dead-center, while a client with the exact same aim would miss due to the inescapable latency.

Next point: H3 has not made the good players bad or what have you. But it has put too much of a reliance on randomness over skill when skill is equal/near equal. Yes, I'll still get my fudge packed by a MLG pro circuit player more times then not. But playing someone with my rough skill level, (or higher or lower,) right now, the RNG is hampering clean outcomes. Arguably, so is latency. But programmed RNG's we can deal with. So why not start there?

Next point: Opinions can be factually wrong, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Now, when the facts are convoluted, contrapositive, or otherwise skewed, there is no reason to be throwing out opinions with a simple "wrong." It is your opinion that randomness has a place in Halo, someone else doesn't. Neither opinion is right or wrong, as neither can be factually proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be correct/incorrect. This can also be used in defining 'mid-to-long range.' I say it's less than, say, 30 WU, you say less than 18 WU. See? Shaky and vague nomenclature leads itself to differing opinions. Same theory can be applied to the theory that H3 is a competitive shooter. I say it is, you say it isn't. Neither is right or wrong.

However, it can be factually proved that Halo Three is competitive, based on the definition of that word and its roots (competition, compete.) It is my opinion that the current setup is detrimental to fair, competitive play for the reasons I've listed, both here and previously.

PS: For those of you who think I'm kvetching or whatnot, please check my previous post on P. 41 of this thread for my idea of an optimal solution. And yes, I do know how to use a BR. I get plenty of kills with it. I'd just like to see it better, just like the mêlée system was patched.

[/wall]

More cookies for those who read.

BB, I applaud the quality of your post(s). Thank you for actually quantifying your opinion with reasoning and actually typing it in English rather than L337speak.

[Edited on 07.22.2008 2:25 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2008 2:17 PM PDT

.Why do we swear on the bible with our left hand raised? It's not like if you raise your right hand it doesn't count. Why do we go into church without a hat cuz were in the presence of god when god is all around us? When you die do you have to protect your kids? If that happens, who do your parents protect? Who protects an adopted kid? What happens if the kid kills the parents? If god gave man rights, why do we only have 10, the british have 13, and the Germans have 21?

... BR gave us SWAT....

  • 07.22.2008 2:55 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!!

Posted by: Lief106
... BR gave us SWAT....

Actually Swat came from a custom gametype from Halo:CE that was fun where everyone used only a Pistol with no shields. This gametype was used a lot for practicing headshots, as well.

Just thought I would clear that up for those who think this gametype was created because of the BR. I actually think the BR ruins it, because all you have to do is sweep your aim across someones head, instead of aiming right at the head. It required more skill in Halo:CE with Pistol.

  • 07.22.2008 4:25 PM PDT

Play Halo 1.

Halo 1 - 3 Pistol Head Shots= Dead. Halo 2 - 4 Direct Headshots = Dead. Halo 3 - 4 Headshots = About 80% will register. Something wrong = 3 body shots and final shot to the head in halo 3 equals a death but 4 direct headshot's wont always register, thats sweet! [/sarcasm]

  • 07.22.2008 5:01 PM PDT

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: TehAttak
All right, BB. I do this in the spirit of friendly debate.


I'm game if you are...

[wall approaches]

Hello wall, prepare to meet other wall.

To begin, I'd like to question your theory that Halo is not a 'competitive shooter.' Perhaps you're equating 'competitive shooter' with MLG or some other subset of this community or that verbiage with being ultra-refined, but Halo is competitive, even on a non-professional level. There is, and (almost) always will be a winner, and a loser. There are rankings, ratings, levels; people off all skills strive to win and be the best. We've all seen the shenanigans people will do to win, level up, XP boost, etc. Perhaps some of us will never be professional-level, but that doesn't mean I don't like or want to win. This can be assumed for other people as well.

Here's why I don't consider Halo to be a "competitive" shooter. You're correct, the term competitive is a very vague often misused term. Especially in regards to Halo. So when I say that I don't consider Halo or HaloCE to be "competitive" I mean it in the sense that MLG tries to use the word. Any game is at it's heart "competitive" in the basic form of the word. It has rules and guidelines and when these are typically followed they provide for a winner and a loser or a draw. Which in breeds competition. That I'll accept. Halo by its base nature is competitive because it is a game. Meaning there are typically winners and losers. However, when many people are talking about Halo or HaloCE as being competitive, they are no longer referring to the base nature of being a game, but abstract characteristics that they are assigning to it. One example of such characteristics is the gameplay offered by MLG. When I say that Halo has never been competitive, this is what I'm referring to. HaloCE by default had a weapon spawn with a weapon that was incapable of headshots except on a few maps where you spawned with both the AR and the M6D. In addition, the only "Team Slayer" variant (which I consider to be the 'default' variant) had additional things that where meant to balance good players against bad players. The more people you killed, the slower you moved. Making it harder to strafe, dodge, and reach med-kits. Dying on the other hand made you faster. Which made it easier to strafe, dodge, etc.. Halo has the ability to become that abstract notion of what people consider "competitive" however it is not originally made that way. While the game is competitive on the very nature it's a game, the Halo series has never been "competitive" in the MLG-esque vantage of the game.

On to your point of spread being a factor in other weapons, yes, this is 100% true.

Wait for it...

I AGREE WITH THE BR HAVING A SPREAD AND FURTHER, THE SPREAD BEING A NECESSITY. I just don't think the spread on the BR needs to be this big. At 18 WU, it is NOT theoretically possible to get a four-shot kill every time, even with pixel-perfect, dead-accurate aim.


FINALLY. I was hoping that someone would finally do the math. You would think with how many times I said, "do the math yourself" that someone would actually do the math themselves. You're correct. Something I have been saying isn't completely true. I implied that at 18WUs with "perfect aim" you could get a 4SK consistently. Which you can. However, at 18WUs, even with "perfect aim" you can occasionally *not* get a 4SK. So you are definitely correct. At 18WUs there is a chance that even with pixel-perfect aim you could end up not getting a 4SK. Can you still get a 4SK at 18 WUs consistently. Yes. Is it 100% guaranteed? No.

If y=dtan(x), where d is the distance between target and gun in WU, and (x) is the deviation in degrees off the vector the gun was fired on, then we see that...

y=18tan(.38º) for the outlier on the third bullet.
.1194=18tan(.38º). The Spartan model's headbox is .094 WU across. Therefore, it is not 100% consistent, even on LAN. In fact, the spread cannot be greater than .295º to theoretically work every time (at 180 ft, 18 WU.)
On top of that, a Bungie employee has stated that the BR shouldn't be used for ranges over 30 WU. One can infer from that remark that the BR is designed to be used inside of 30 WU. (Source, Luke M. Smith and Tyson Green, June 20, 2008. It should also be noted that the formula for bullet margin of error here has been proved wrong, confirmed by JonnyOThan.)


You'll have to excuse the fact that I've only been using the formula as provided in the WWUD for my calculations. I was unaware that Jon Cable had said there was a different formula. But here's what I'm looking at so we can compare notes. To me, I wanted to know at what distance can you completely mitigate bullet spread so that with 100% pixel-perfect aim you can *always* get a 4SK. Not consistently. Always. So, to arrive at what distance you'll always receive a 4SK with perfect aim, I had to figure out exactly how much the maximum vector deviation would be for that all-important 3rd shot on the 4th burst. Since the worst case scenario (WCS) of the 3rd bullet of the burst has a maximum mathematical deviation of .38; I needed to figure what that maximum deviation would be at the various WUs. So here's the math I ran based off of the WWUD (we're assuming that the person firing has pixel-perfect aim):

MC's head is .094

sin(.38)*18= .119. Which means at 18 WUs it the WCS a third bullet can miss.
sin(.38)*17=.112. Which means at 17 WUs in the WCS a third bullet can miss.
sin(.38)*16=.106. Which means at 16 WUs in the WCS a third bullet can miss.
sin(.38)*15=.099. Which means at 15 WUs in the WCS a third bullet can miss.
sin(.38)*14=.092. Which means at 14 WUs in the WCS a third bullet cannot miss when aimed correctly.

Even assuming the WCS if aimed perfectly at 14WUs the spread of the third bullet can be mitigated. So at 14WUs with perfect aim you can *always* get a 4SK.

I should note that I am very very rusty when doing most of these types of computations. I make no promises that my math is 100% accurate. Now onto something that I do know a little more about.

So right about now, all the nay-sayers that I've been dealing with are about to go hog-wild because they think someone has proven me wrong. You might have if I ever said that at 18 WUs you will *always* get a 4SK. I tried to be mindful of how I worded things, but I might have slipped up a time or two. What I was intending to say is that at 18WUs with perfect aim you can get a 4SK (which is obvious) and you can consistently get a 4SK with perfect aim. I've already shown that during a WCS a 3rd bullet could miss which would prevent you from getting that 4SK. However, when I said that you could consistently get a 4SK with "perfect aim" at 18WUs I was not lying.

Now here's how I figure that and I'll grant that it presupposes a few things. The third bullet of the BR spread was said to have a mathematical deviation range of .00 to .38 in the WWUD. I'm going to look at the probability that under a Gaussian Distribution, how likely it would be to get .38 at any consistency. That's the assumption, and I fully accept it. I'm assuming that the bullet spread is determined using a Gaussian Distribution. If it's not, I could be wrong. Let's continue assuming that I'm correct (humor me). Utilizing the "empirical rule" I wanted to find at what standard deviation would include/exclude .38 as the worst case scenario. So, still assuming that bullet spread follows a Gaussian Distribution, that would make Mu equal to .19. Following the "empirical rule" it would make when Sigma equals 1 the possible range would be .06 to .32. So under 1 standard deviation the maximum your spread could be is .32. Under 2 standard deviations the maximum your spread could be is .37. So you have less than a 5% chance of ever hitting a .38 spread bullet. So if bullet spread operates under a Gaussian Distribution, you have less than a 5% chance of getting the WCS. Which leads me to believe that you could with "perfect aim" consistently get a 4SK at 18WUs. Is it very likely since none of us have pixel perfect aim? No, not really.

Now onto the 30WUs stage. I would imagine that at 30WUs is pretty much the max range the BR can even be considered "effective" let alone way outside of it's "intended" range. 30WUs is equivalent to 300 feet. That's a football field. However, even at this distance using your math down below here, the margin of error is .078. Which means that even at the WCS for the 1st bullet it would still hit the target assuming you have perfect aim.

Right now, even the first bullet is iffy at 30 WU (assuming .15º spread, the margin for error is .078 WU.) Needless to say, aim (especially on a pixel-precise basis,) is way too finicky for Live play. Even if both players have picture-perfect aim, the host's shot would register dead-center, while a client with the exact same aim would miss due to the inescapable latency.

Latency is always going to be a problem. When Bungie tried to do something that would do away and completely mitigate latency, the BR became a "hitscan" weapon. Not something that is really desired, at least not IMO. However, at the range you are talking about above (30WUs) I doubt anyone could be that finicky that they'd be pissed because latency could have cost them a kill. You are obviously operating the BR outside of it's "intended" range and barely within it's "effective" range.


[continues]

  • 07.22.2008 5:07 PM PDT

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.

Next point: H3 has not made the good players bad or what have you. But it has put too much of a reliance on randomness over skill when skill is equal/near equal. Yes, I'll still get my fudge packed by a MLG pro circuit player more times then not. But playing someone with my rough skill level, (or higher or lower,) right now, the RNG is hampering clean outcomes. Arguably, so is latency. But programmed RNG's we can deal with. So why not start there?

It's really not hampering it that much when looked at in the greater picture. At ~15WUs if you have perfect aim, you can ALWAYS mitigate bullet spread. That's still a considerable distance. So at even that range, aiming and precision skill is still paramount. If you have better aim (verging on perfect) you'll be rewarded with a kill over them. Like I said, if bullet spread operates under a Gaussian Distribution, you have less than a 5% chance of ever hitting that WCS. After that distance the game makes you focus more on teamwork or other independent variables that will tip the scales in your favor so that an outcome will not come down to chance. But even then, chance is still typically ruled by probability.

Next point: Opinions can be factually wrong, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Now, when the facts are convoluted, contrapositive, or otherwise skewed, there is no reason to be throwing out opinions with a simple "wrong." It is your opinion that randomness has a place in Halo, someone else doesn't. Neither opinion is right or wrong, as neither can be factually proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be correct/incorrect. This can also be used in defining 'mid-to-long range.' I say it's less than, say, 30 WU, you say less than 18 WU. See? Shaky and vague nomenclature leads itself to differing opinions. Same theory can be applied to the theory that H3 is a competitive shooter. I say it is, you say it isn't. Neither is right or wrong.

If I know someone's opinion to be factually wrong, I would consider it less valid. Especially if we are talking "valid" in the logical expression of the term. Now, to defend my opinion of why I believe randomness has a place in Halo. I can support my opinion with the fact that Bungie has used randomness in all 3 Halo games. That to me, proves, that randomness has a place in Halo. Now, I'll agree that opinions based upon certain things that are plainly subjective it's hard to say someone's opinion is wrong about. Like I said previously, when something is prima facie a subjective term (like "mid-range") it's hard to say what is right or wrong because the term is obviously relative to what one considers either close or far range. Unless of course you get an authoritarian position on it that says, "Bungie considers in Halo 3, mid-range is considered to be from 8WUs to 25WUs". Since they make the gold they make the rules in regards to their game. Outside of that, it's purely subjective.

However, it can be factually proved that Halo Three is competitive, based on the definition of that word and its roots (competition, compete.) It is my opinion that the current setup is detrimental to fair, competitive play for the reasons I've listed, both here and previously.

You're right. Depending on what definition of the word you use, Halo 3 can be competitive. When I said that Halo series has never been "competitive" by default I was saying that in regards to the abstract definition of "competitive" that is mostly commonly referred to as MLG-esque gameplay.

BB, I applaud the quality of your post(s). Thank you for actually quantifying your opinion with reasoning and actually typing it in English rather than L337speak.

Same to you.

~B.B.

  • 07.22.2008 5:08 PM PDT

Will post soon, busy atm.

[Edited on 07.22.2008 5:46 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2008 5:46 PM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Nice strawman.


Why thank you.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I never said I wanted the winner to always be determined solely by luck.


The winner should never be intentionally determined by luck. Or do you think luck is a adequate substitute for skill?

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
However, I did say that luck will always play some part in the equation.


But it shouldn't. I want to play a game, I want to see how I measure up. I don't want to gamble.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
The "better" skilled player should win according to their skill over the other player. That still happens in Halo 3. Shockingly, I know.


I love your penchant to state the obvious.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
However, if the game contained no luck or no chance and it was just a straight battle of who is "better skilled" then arguably the game would be determined before it even started.


No it wouldn't. The game would be determined by who is better during the game, not overall skill. Player A is playing against Player B. When both are playing at their peak, Player A should beat Player B, as Player A is more skilled.

This does not happen.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
However, when you introduce a degree of luck or chance into an equation, it makes the outcome uncertain.


So if you implement luck or chance, the outcome becomes uncertain?

SHOCKING REVELATION BB!

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Not so uncertain that it's a complete "coin-toss", since the "higher skilled" teams typically do win the majority of the time, however it does leave room for "upsets".


Yes, but the upsets aren't caused by the less skilled player rising to the occasion, which is what it should be. BR fights shouldn't be determined by who the most skiled player is; they should be determined by who is the most skilled person during the battle.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Oh, and for the record, Halo is NOT a competitive shooter. It never has been and probably never will be. You can force it into acting like a competitive shooter, but it NEVER has been one by default.


That's nice.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Second, if you are arguing against BR spread because it installs a random factor into a weapon than you obviously would be against bullet spread in the AR, shotgun, and Mauler.


I am. I don't believe that randomness should be intentionally implemented. This applies to the AR, Shotgun and Mauler aswell.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I know I keep repeating this argument but none of you, and I mean NONE OF YOU, have come up with an adequate rebuttal to it.


Don't insinuate that you have an adequate argument yourself.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Yep, you're right. Intentionally implementing elements of chance makes the game less boring and creates weapons balance. Glad we could agree.


That's nice, now let's look at something else you said:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I was wrong.


Really BB? You finally decided to admit it? Glad to see you have changed your mind.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
There are times when opinions are all you can use. I can also show how idiotic your opinion is as well as offer a counter-opinion. One that has better logic. Which is what I've been doing this entire thread.


Really? That's odd, I thought what you have been doing is belittleing other members, condescending their opinion, picking and choosing which arguments to rebut and just generally making a biased fool out of yourself.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
It's people's opinion that the BR shouldn't have bullet spread because randomness has no place in Halo. That opinion is obviously idiotic because randomness has always had a place in Halo, since they've been using it to create weapon's balance from the beginning.


Doesn't mean I have to agree that it should have a place in Halo. Can you understand that Berserka? It's hardly idiotic at all. In fact, it's your statement above that is idiotic. Let me break it down for you -

Randomness has always had a place in Halo. We don't believe it should have a place in Halo.

Are you with me?

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
It's people's opinion that the BR should operate the same way regardless of distance. That opinion is obviously idiotic because all weapons operate differently depending on distance. I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.


Strawman?

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Great. Have "perfect aim" and you can have a consistent 4SK at 18WUs. Until you can have "perfect aim" which you can't; it is quite illogical to expect a consistent or really a single 4SK at that distance. Just like I don't expect the shotgun to consistently kill at 7WUs either.


If the target is stationary at 18WU's, and the red dot in my reticle is centered perfectly onto their head, then I should consistently get a 4SK. That is a very basic example of what should happen. Currently, it does not.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I however would definitely NOT want people to get a consistent 4SK at 18WUs. Why? Because that distance is huge. If you could get a consistent 4SK at that distance it would allow people to just sit back with a BR and kill at a range where your only defense would be either another BR or a sniper rifle. This bland, boring, broken gameplay sounds familiar. It's called Halo 2. Something, thankfully, isn't the case any longer.


Bias? Opinion? Arrogance?

Check, Check and Check for the above.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Isn't it though? At 18WUs even through the scope, you cannot see whether or not you even still have the 'red dot' because the distance is so great. To expect a 4SK let alone a consistent 4SK from this range is like asking for flying warthogs. Sounds fun, but it would be complete crap.


Even at 10-12WU's, where you can see the 'red dot', a consistent 4SK is not achievable.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Yes, and what do we like to call those people? The minority.


Population does not determine an arguments validity, dear BB.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I know isn't it?


IT SURE IS!!11!1!

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
And yet some people still can't seem to understand it. Craven for one. He can't seem to understand that the further away from your target you get, the harder it is to have "perfect aim". Let's look at the sniper rifle for example. When you are close to your opponent, their head appears a lot bigger...especially when you look at it through what we call "a scope". Now, at this distance it's easy to get a headshot because there are several areas on the target you can aim for that will still achieve you "perfect aim". Now lets move that sniper way way across Standoff. Shockingly....the area on the target in which the sniper has to aim in order to achieve "perfect aim" and get a 1SK is incredibly smaller. So much so that it would take a great deal of skill to consistently hit such a small target. Hmm...kinda sounds like how the BR in H3 operates. The closer you are to your opponent, the easier to 4SK. The further away, the harder. Not a difficult concept.


Let me take this last bit, because it is particularly interesting...

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
The closer you are to your opponent, the easier to 4SK. The further away, the harder. Not a difficult concept.


I realise that Berserka. But the point at which a consistent 4SK can be achieved should be at medium distance. Currently, it is a lot shorter.


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I know. I'm right about a lot of things.


That's nice. Sadly, this isn't one of them.


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Because sadly operating under the assumption that people can understand anything that isn't spelled out for them hasn't been working too well so far. Christ I had to spend 2 pages trying to explain to Craven what the concept of "perfect aim" is. Sadly, I still don't think he understands. At least Foahda got it in like the first 2 minutes. I've given up on trying to explain it to Craven, well at least for now.


Dear Diary...


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Oh no no. You're wrong. You can (theoretically) mitigate bullet spread up till 18WUs. *YOU* just can't do it. You don't have perfect aim. Neither do I if that makes you feel better. However, if the math nerds are correct, it is possible.


It is possible, but it isn't consistent.


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
So until you can do the math and prove to me that you cannot mathematically achieve a 4SK at 18WUs, it still is the case. Sorry Charlie.


Oh no, you can. But you can't consistently. Which is what it should be able to do. The BR should work consistently in its intended range. But it doesn't. Therefore it needs to be fixed.

Understand the argument now BB?


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Ohz ta noez! Not you too. If the target it stationary makes little difference about what constitutes "perfect aim". At 18WUs, lining up the reticle with the BR to achieve a 4SK is obviously not simple to do. Just like lining up the reticle of the sniper rifle from the distance of completely across Standoff isn't exactly easy to do either. The degree of precision required to aim those weapons at those distances are simply not easy to do.


But it is possible.



Will continue...



  • 07.22.2008 5:51 PM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
It's easy to line up the reticle on the target. It's not easy to line up the reticle to give you a 4SK.


Of course it isn't easy to line up the reticle to achieve a 4SK. That is because the spread is ridiculous. It should be consistently easy to line up the reticle to give you a 4SK at Medium Range.

Get the argument now BB?


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
No, nice strawman.


You're too kind.


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Craven was implying that the randomness in H3 has somehow made good players bad. That's not the case. The good players are still good. The bad players are still bad.


But how much better are the good players compared to the bad?


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I'm going to give you a little hint here. OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG.


Oh, I noticed this. Right after I read your argument.


Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I can label people's opinions as wrong if they are just that, wrong.


You can, but try and doing it without belittleing and condescending.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Which a lot of them in this thread have been.


Indeed. And, strangely enough, they all agree with you.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
When it's people's opinion that "randomness has no place in Halo". That's a wrong opinion.


No it isn't, that is a personal preference.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
When it's people's opinion that "Halo is a competitive shooter (by default)". That's a wrong opinion.


You know what else is a 'wrong opinion'?
See: BerserkaBarage 's argument.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
See where I'm going with this? Now there are some things that are completely subjective. Like for example, what one person considers "mid range".


So 'does randomness have a place in Halo' isn't subjective?

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Take you for example. You think 18WUs in H3 is "mid range". I don't. I would classify it as "mid-far". Again, that's very subjective because "mid range" is obviously a prima facie subjective term.


So is 'should randomness be in Halo?'

Posted by: BerserkerBarageIt is subjective to what is considered close range and what is considered far range.

So is randomness in Halo. Some people agree with its implementation, some don't.

*waits for BB to reply with "nice strawman"

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Uh, no. My elitist attitude is just fine. Actually, there seems to be several other people that seem to like it.


Several people liked Hitler. Several people liked George Bush. Doesn't mean their attitude is fine. Actually, now that I think about it, you remind me of Hitler and George Bush; you both have a penchant for arguing illogical fallacies.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
At least 2 people have consistently sent me PMs telling me how much enjoyment they are getting out of watching me dismantle and dispatch your so-called "potent evidence".


Subjective.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
So while you think that I am completely opposed to all things being debated with me that is obviously not the case. I'm just completely opposed to all things that are being debated that are wrong.


So am I. Which is why I hate debating with you.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
You'd do well to stay away from those and find something that is actually a legitimate claim.


Oh BB, the irony!

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
I've always liked this quote. I also find it funny that you'd try to use it against me.


I find it funny that you still think you're right.

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Here's another quote, and this one is from me, "find a legitimate argument and stop wasting my time with your crap".


Oh, the irony.

  • 07.22.2008 5:52 PM PDT

"Don't take life too seriously, nobody gets out alive anyway." Goes for anything I say; anything I do, doubly so.

Need assistance with anything? Shoot me a PM. Duardo's FAQ on User Titles. | A word from 54.

Pink Floyd would be proud of all these WALLS!

[yes, that means this is going to be a wall.]

On your definition of 'competitive:' MLG uses 'competitive shooter' to mean something completely different than most people would dub Halo. But yes, competitive and competitive shooter are very different... that was my point.

On mathematics: I am a math nerd, so I had to run some numbers. :)

Tangent is used instead of sine because of the legs used in calculation. PM for a more complete explanation...

My figures place the maximum 4sk certainty distance at 14.2 WU. (.94=14.2tan[.38º]) However, this requires 99.999% accuracy (100% being dead center of the head.) You might be able to build a machine that can execute this well on a standing target on LAN. Add in variable latency, movement, and good old human error, and this is nigh impossible. Now, let's assume that a professional LAN player can only be 90% accurate, and therefore his distance of accuracy is multiplied by .9, to about 12.8 WU. Now this is a pro on LAN. This same pro may only be able to be seventy-five percent accurate off-host on Live, due to latency. Now the guaranteed 4sk is at 10.65 WU. One hundred six feet six inches. On Live. Professional gamer here. An average Joe is going to be around 8.5 WU if he's lucky, I'd assume from these statistics.

Onto stat dev. and the RNG. I'm going to make two assumptions.
1) The first bullet will have less or equal deviation than the second, and the second will have less than or equal spread to the third.
2) All values within these bounds are equally probable for all bullets.

So, that means that bullet one's mean will be about .075º. However, bullet two gets more complicated, considering the fact that the previous number influences the second. My math is not 100% here, but I put the next mean for spread at about .22º. Bullet three has the same problems as the second, in that it's dependent on both the second and the first. I put the mean at about .315º. This would make the average mean for all three bullets (61/3, 20.333333...)º by my calculations. Admitted, not a major change, but it does show that the spread can be fatal and screw one gamer or the other by pure chance. Let's assume I pull a .01º-.12º-.15º spread. My shot is going to be quite accurate. However, my opponent pulled a .13º-.28º-.38º, so he may or may not miss. This is too variable right now.

The 30WU just came from the WWUD, mostly used for the inference I was making about medium-range.

Now, I disagree with your statement on the 'big picture' and the frequency of BR duels over 15 WU. Yes, the system rewards teamwork in this scenario, but its price is too steep: inconsistency at what many people deem a 'close' range.

As for opinions, I guess what we deem wrong and how we go about it is just another thing that makes us unique. Diversity FTW. But yeah, until the authority (Bungie) decides to define various terms (namely mid-to-long range,) we can speculate freely.

Mr. Potato, I regret to inform you that randomness can never be removed from Halo. Anything from a corrupted piece of code, latency, or your disc spontaneously combusting cannot be prevented. Such are the laws of entropy. But I also agree with you that the BR is too random right now. It just needs a quick variable change--that's it IMO.

[/wall]

For reading this, you will be spared the wrath of the Disembodied Soul. (Not really, but I'm out of cookies. :p)

  • 07.22.2008 6:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

honestly if you dont like a battle rifle dont use it, and if you feel your getting owned by it, than practice and get better with it..i did, and i got used to it for swat, now br is at the top of my w/d page by about 5k kills.

  • 07.22.2008 6:25 PM PDT

Posted by: TehAttak
Mr. Potato, I regret to inform you that randomness can never be removed from Halo. Anything from a corrupted piece of code, latency, or your disc spontaneously combusting cannot be prevented. Such are the laws of entropy. But I also agree with you that the BR is too random right now. It just needs a quick variable change--that's it IMO.


Oh I know. I just don't believe that randomness should be intentionally implemented.

  • 07.22.2008 6:29 PM PDT

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: TehAttak
[...]
Now, I disagree with your statement on the 'big picture' and the frequency of BR duels over 15 WU. Yes, the system rewards teamwork in this scenario, but its price is too steep: inconsistency at what many people deem a 'close' range.
[...]


I'm just going to make a quick note since I'm posting this from my phone. This is really where this debate becomes purely opinionated. I don't consider 15WUs "close" range. At 15WUs, it becomes almost impossible to even see the 'red dot' in your reticle when scoped in. From my understanding 15WUs in roughly the size of the middle area of Guardian. That's a pretty big area that you still can consistently get a 4SK kill in. Maybe you consider 15WUs close range. I don't. But since "range" is always going to be subjective, it's very hard to even argue this point.

Glad you ran the numbers and mine weren't that far off even when you ran them differently.

Oh, and BannedPotatoLive; comparing me to Hitler and George Bush. That was pretty hilarious. Go troll some other thread before you find yourself on another "vacation".

As for TehAttak, I'll respond in a better fashion when I can give the time to adequately read what you put.

~B.B.

edited for spelling. QWERTY keyboards are not my friend.

[Edited on 07.22.2008 6:44 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2008 6:43 PM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Oh, and BannedPotatoLive; comparing me to Hitler and George Bush. That was pretty hilarious. Go troll some other thread before you find yourself on another "vacation".


Oh no, I was merely suggesting that just because people agree with you, doesn't mean you are right. I also implied that you remind of the two leaders due to the fact you share the common trait of arguing illogical fallacies.

[Edited on 07.22.2008 6:52 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2008 6:52 PM PDT

"Don't take life too seriously, nobody gets out alive anyway." Goes for anything I say; anything I do, doubly so.

Need assistance with anything? Shoot me a PM. Duardo's FAQ on User Titles. | A word from 54.

Posted by: BakedPotatoLive
Oh I know. I just don't believe that randomness should be intentionally implemented.


Not as much as it is now with the Battle Rifle. 100% agreed.

Also, guys, play nice... No need for this very civil debate to turn into a flame war. But then again, so many good threads died this way...

Such is Bungie.net.

  • 07.22.2008 7:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I don't have a problem with the spread of the BR... but I've been noticing that I get a random bullet back in my clip a lot more lately. I don't notice it in the heat of battle, but I guess that a good four shot can be deterred by the bullet ending back up into your gun.

Here's video proof of what this guy calls LAN Live (I guess it's when you have two Gamertags on the same xbox and you play them against each other over xbox live?)

Bullet Returned

I was wondering if there are any plans to get this problem fixed... Or at least an explanation of why it happens.

  • 07.22.2008 8:17 PM PDT

"Don't take life too seriously, nobody gets out alive anyway." Goes for anything I say; anything I do, doubly so.

Need assistance with anything? Shoot me a PM. Duardo's FAQ on User Titles. | A word from 54.

I just saw Mr. Bauer's thread on the same exact subject...

Then there's the whole 'complete the animation for reloading, get credited for the reload, then watch your gun go empty without firing a bullet' thing that also seems to plague various weapons including the BR.

My my, I am waiting for several coding fixes with patch 1.2...

  • 07.22.2008 8:41 PM PDT