Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: The Only BR Thread
  • Subject: The Only BR Thread
Subject: The Only BR Thread
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Breezy131
Posted by: ezy goin
There is nothing wrong with the battle rifle,

Oh yes, there certainly is.

all weapons were made to have their own strengths and weaknesses
Making a weapon behave randomly is a terrible way to balance it.

instead of spending time complaining about it, just try to enjoy it how it is
I don't really enjoy it when I know the result of a BR vs. BR duel is random. The internet makes things random enough, and Bungie's brilliant design team made things even more random.


I'm not saying you're wrong about randomness being bad, but then again, I don't know. Honestly, how else do you propose they fix it? If you make an SMG non random, that brings some problems to the table. Ok, well, if it's more accurate, why not make the damage do less? Then you have a worthless weapon, as it won't kill as quickly at closer ranges because you weakened it for longer ranges. Well, maybe we could increase the reticle size. Quite honestly, the reticule is already large for many CQ weapons. Do you want half of the screen to be a reticule?

The problem with everyone saying that randomness is a factor is that they don't realize it isn't a factor....FOR THE INTENDED RANGE. Of course the BR isn't perfectly accurate beyond a certain point, but then again, that goes for almost everything. Even Snipers have to be lead and aren't perfectly accurate at extreme ranges. Each weapon has a certain range to be used, and if you use it within that range, there is not luck involved. If you choose to use that weapon outside that range, you risk randomness, but that's your fault. Choose your weapons accordingly or increase your chances by team firing and using other tactics.

A lot of people argue for a tighter spread here, but not lack of randomness. People realize that randomness is what keeps range on things. That being said, by decreasing spread, all you are doing is merely moving the distance at which randomness occurs.

My suggestions, if you wanted to take randomness away, would be to have a consistent spread and maybe increase the reticule size just a little, which would allow one to factor for spread, but make it harder at distances unintended.

  • 10.11.2008 7:04 PM PDT

The next person to assume I am talking about ranked, do us all a favor and look at what I play!

Something that is ironic. If the BR is about 7 times more accurate than the shotgun, why are they not -blam!-ing about the shotgun spread?

  • 10.11.2008 7:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: fifthderelicte
how else do you propose they fix it?

What is there to fix?

I'm going to assume you mean "balance", so disregard what I say if I'm wrong.

There are plenty of other ways to balance it without snatching control from the hands of the player. You like to say the Battle Rifle takes no skill compared to the Carbine, so why not steepen the learning curve? Let's reduce the auto-aim, reduce bullet magnetism, make it single-shot. Pick one (or several), I don't care.

The problem with everyone saying that randomness is a factor is that they don't realize it isn't a factor....FOR THE INTENDED RANGE

So, this qualifies as outside the Battle Rifle's intended range?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClMojJI3zBs

Clearly random, so I guess that is outside the Battle Rifle's range.

if you use it within that range, there is not luck involved
You know, I can't believe you think this. Look at your average Shotgun vs Shotgun fight or Hammer/Sword duel. How can you say that there is no luck involved? If you're host, you're lucky. If you're not, too bad. Luck is a significant factor. Why do you think ShWATguns and Team Melee were so hated? Yes, there were other factors, but mostly it was because the internet had more control on the outcome of the game than the players did.

A lot of people argue for a tighter spread here, but not lack of randomness.
Well, I also think the Battle Rifle could have its range amped up. But I also think there ought to be a way to mitigate random tendencies, much the way you could in Halo 1 with the M6D.

My suggestions, if you wanted to take randomness away, would be to have a consistent spread and maybe increase the reticule size just a little, which would allow one to factor for spread, but make it harder at distances unintended.
I don't really think reticule size is what makes things harder to aim/account for bullet trajectories. The Sniper Rifle has a tiny reticule and requires tremendous aim.

I think that if you want to make a weapon harder to use long range you have to give it low auto aim. It's already pretty hard to hit someone, while strafing back and forth, from one base to another on Standoff with a Battle Rifle, so giving it a consistent burst would merely reward players with excellent dexterity, not making it easier to use.

Posted by: mortabunt
Something that is ironic. If the BR is about 7 times more accurate than the shotgun, why are they not -blam!-ing about the shotgun spread?

Because the Shotgun is not nearly as important to the outcome of a game as the Battle Rifle
is. Besides, the Shotgun spread does suck.


[Edited on 11.10.2008 7:41 PM PST]

  • 10.11.2008 7:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

I was referring to balance issues. I am admittedly quite skeptical since H2, and want people to make very thoughtful changes before changes are made. In fact, I have argued for a faster ROF, decreased damage, and an almost inconsequential burst (meaning strafe shooting wouldn't get you the headshot, which is way too easy, but you'd rather have to have your reticule on the head when you pulled the trigger. This would essentially be like a single shot, though it would still take up 3 bullets. Or make it single shot, who cares). I love what Bungie has already done with the way they did hitscan, which requires skill. I also like your idea of less auto-aim. I think this would be wonderful. I like you Breezy, but honestly, if you read a lot of these posts, people argue for a better BR (which is already really easy to get HS with, and everyone has as their TOD) without accounting for more skill. That's my major issue. But I agree with you. Bump up the goodness, bump up the skill.

As for the video, I would like to see where he aimed. If you look at advice from anyone, they'll say to aim at the neck. If this guy was aiming at the head (which it looks like he was, by where the shots hit), it's a smaller target. It's a burst weapon, of course it's going to burst up. IMO, he didn't aim where he should have, and he could have easily had a 4 shot every time, and probably even from greater distances. If you want to test this out, I'm up for it. I'd rather do it in person so I know that the variables were accounted for.

I wouldn't mind if they kept a good amount of spread but made it non random. Factoring in where to aim based on distance would add to the skill, IMO. Sure, some will say that if you don't have to aim for the head, it's not skillful, but I disagree. If you have to aim at the crotch from across Standoff to get the last bullet for the HS, what's wrong with that. Yet half way across standoff you'd need to aim at the chest, and from invis to rockets, aim at the head. Distance is still accounted for, as anything beyond that distance (or whatever they chose) would not be four shot. If the crotch across standoff gave you a headshot, any lower and you'd shoot the first bullet between their legs. That would control for distance. IMO, that thinking combined with the aiming adds a lot more skill. So yes, a non-random burst wouldn't be bad.

I agree, that there are other ways to work things. However, reticule size definitely makes a difference. If the SMG's reticule was like the BR, but it's randomness was kept, those bullets are intended to hit around that reticule. Sure, it would still be random, but in a much tighter area. A bigger reticule spreads out the bullets, decreasing the accuracy. If you make the SMG reticule bigger, it will be harder to hit because there is a larger range of where those bullets will hit.

Thanks for the discussion Breezy. If you want to do that test or play, my GT is BJRSCJ.

  • 10.11.2008 8:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I see that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the BR. As stated, each weapon have their strenghts and weaknesses.

  • 10.12.2008 4:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i think that the br could be more powerful in halo2 cus' halo 2 din hav weapons like the AR.the BR was like a AR replacment.so the current BR is perfectly fine 4 me.


[Edited on 10.12.2008 8:10 AM PDT]

  • 10.12.2008 8:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

the br is really good stop spamming

  • 10.12.2008 12:32 PM PDT

I think the Battle Rifle is fine the way it is.

  • 10.12.2008 12:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Nokterne
Posted by: JUICEHEAD3311
The BR is fine if you dont like it dont use it its as simple as that.
And replace it with what? The Carbine? Oh yeah, you can't start with it, nice one Bungie.

i think what he's trying to say is if you don't start with it, don't pick it up. seriously

  • 10.12.2008 12:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

No matter what weapon you are wielding, no matter how good your connection is, there will always be a winner and a loser. Its only because so many people use the BR that is subject to such scrutiny. Personally, I think it is fine as it is. The only work that needs to be done is that of the individuals themselves using the BR. Just imagine if everybody used spikers, the exact same debate would arise.

'Nuff said.

  • 10.12.2008 1:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: fifthderelicte
As for the video, I would like to see where he aimed. If you look at advice from anyone, they'll say to aim at the neck. If this guy was aiming at the head (which it looks like he was, by where the shots hit), it's a smaller target. It's a burst weapon, of course it's going to burst up. IMO, he didn't aim where he should have, and he could have easily had a 4 shot every time, and probably even from greater distances. If you want to test this out, I'm up for it. I'd rather do it in person so I know that the variables were accounted for.

Well... I used that video to demonstrate that it was in fact behaving randomly at a very short range; I'd hazard a guess that each tile is about four meters to a side, so even at twenty meters, the Battle Rifle's random tendencies do alter the outcome.

Yes, I am aware that the wiser choice to take is to aim for the chest or neck first; however, also bear in mind that this situation will never crop up in an actual game. No one will ever stand still; no one will willingly let themselves be killed. Besides; twenty meters? That's not much.

I'm not particularly interested in testing it out, though. No offense, of course, but it's been done to death and beyond twenty or so meters the Battle Rifle's random tendencies are definitely noticeable.

An idea to remove the "strafe-headshot" I had was to simply require three bullets - the equivalent of one burst - to hit someone in the head in order to score a headshot. If this was implemented, though, I think it would be best if the spread was mitigated, to around .15, .16, and finally .17 maximum degree of error for the burst, and it would take three shots to take down someone's shields. In this way, the Battle Rifle can still score a guaranteed four-shot kill up to 96.6 meters, assuming they aim correctly. In this way, most parties are satisfied - the random tendencies are only noticed definitely beyond close range, headshots are harder to achieve, and many people will be delighted at having an actual medium range gun.

Because the Battle Rifle's maximum degree of error is currently .38 degrees, this means that - even when aiming for the chest, since the final bullet must hit the head - the maximum guaranteed four shot kill range is just 43.2 meters. This does call into question the video I linked earlier, but my main purpose in showing that video is that the random tendencies definitely do have an impact at what should by any logic be close range.

  • 10.12.2008 1:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

some cool tricks here > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flHUnuoJDNc

heres the site and forum to learn how > http://www.glitchamanjaro.com/public_html/forums/index.php?re ferrerid=1539

  • 10.12.2008 7:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Lets not lie I could probably out BR Jesus Christ himself, FACT

  • 10.12.2008 8:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The BR spread could be fixed. I remember shooting someone afar who was standing still, and it took me 5 or more depending on distance.

In team games, it's should not or rarely be about individual BR skills. Stick together, you win together. Getting assists is just as important as getting kills.

  • 10.12.2008 8:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Breezy131
Posted by: fifthderelicte
As for the video, I would like to see where he aimed. If you look at advice from anyone, they'll say to aim at the neck. If this guy was aiming at the head (which it looks like he was, by where the shots hit), it's a smaller target. It's a burst weapon, of course it's going to burst up. IMO, he didn't aim where he should have, and he could have easily had a 4 shot every time, and probably even from greater distances. If you want to test this out, I'm up for it. I'd rather do it in person so I know that the variables were accounted for.

Well... I used that video to demonstrate that it was in fact behaving randomly at a very short range; I'd hazard a guess that each tile is about four meters to a side, so even at twenty meters, the Battle Rifle's random tendencies do alter the outcome.

Yes, I am aware that the wiser choice to take is to aim for the chest or neck first; however, also bear in mind that this situation will never crop up in an actual game. No one will ever stand still; no one will willingly let themselves be killed. Besides; twenty meters? That's not much.

I'm not particularly interested in testing it out, though. No offense, of course, but it's been done to death and beyond twenty or so meters the Battle Rifle's random tendencies are definitely noticeable.

An idea to remove the "strafe-headshot" I had was to simply require three bullets - the equivalent of one burst - to hit someone in the head in order to score a headshot. If this was implemented, though, I think it would be best if the spread was mitigated, to around .15, .16, and finally .17 maximum degree of error for the burst, and it would take three shots to take down someone's shields. In this way, the Battle Rifle can still score a guaranteed four-shot kill up to 96.6 meters, assuming they aim correctly. In this way, most parties are satisfied - the random tendencies are only noticed definitely beyond close range, headshots are harder to achieve, and many people will be delighted at having an actual medium range gun.

Because the Battle Rifle's maximum degree of error is currently .38 degrees, this means that - even when aiming for the chest, since the final bullet must hit the head - the maximum guaranteed four shot kill range is just 43.2 meters. This does call into question the video I linked earlier, but my main purpose in showing that video is that the random tendencies definitely do have an impact at what should by any logic be close range.


I know people will move, but that brings the skill in. Even if you had perfect spread, people will move and throw off bullets. So this is the best test to control variables. I was just saying that instead of aiming for the head, you should aim for the neck, because that's the most accurate place to aim for. I know the BR does have random spread, as I've experienced it many times, so I'm not arguing against that. My biggest problem is the BR's ease of use, particularly in headshots. But I really like your HS implementation idea.

  • 10.13.2008 5:25 AM PDT

Halo: CE > > Halo 3 > Halo: Reach = Halo 2

Posted by: Reptilian Rob
Im my humble opinion the BR goes against everything that Halo CE stood for. The originality, the freedom, the innovative aspects and above all the "feel" of Halo.

There I said it.

Amen, brother!

  • 10.13.2008 8:09 AM PDT

I almost completely agree with Breezy but I think the BR should be single shot, this would make online play much more consistent in my opinion.

There really isn't a need for spread nevermind random spread because you have to be very accurate to hit people at long range, the difficulty itself limits the range of the weapon. On top of that why is it a bad thing for the weapon to have range, the sniper is way more powerful and easier to use at range.

I really don't understand some of the people that play this game, do you not find it fun for the game to be determined by skill rather than luck, do you not want to use weapons that have a learning curve and allow for versatile use, do you really enjoy running in a straight line with a weapon that you don't even need to aim and have all outcomes decided by the internet or a roll of the dice? I really give up trying to convince people.

  • 10.13.2008 8:41 AM PDT

Halo: CE > > Halo 3 > Halo: Reach = Halo 2

Posted by: Prodigy117
I almost completely agree with Breezy but I think the BR should be single shot, this would make online play much more consistent in my opinion.

Agreed.

Having 1 bullet instead of 3 per burst would also mean less bullets dropping (not registering). H3 is hideous for this.

  • 10.13.2008 11:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Prodigy117
I almost completely agree with Breezy but I think the BR should be single shot, this would make online play much more consistent in my opinion.

There really isn't a need for spread nevermind random spread because you have to be very accurate to hit people at long range, the difficulty itself limits the range of the weapon. On top of that why is it a bad thing for the weapon to have range, the sniper is way more powerful and easier to use at range.

I really don't understand some of the people that play this game, do you not find it fun for the game to be determined by skill rather than luck, do you not want to use weapons that have a learning curve and allow for versatile use, do you really enjoy running in a straight line with a weapon that you don't even need to aim and have all outcomes decided by the internet or a roll of the dice? I really give up trying to convince people.


I don't want the BR upgraded for the whole reason of skill. If they tighten the spread, it's just another easy gun to use. Seriously, how is the BR difficult? I've already stated this several times before, but the BR really doesn't take much skill. People want more range on a weapon that is so simple to kill with and get headshots with. If they made it much more like the carbine and made the burst a non-factor (or implement Breezy's idea), that's fine. But so many people want a more powerful BR while still keeping it a skilless weapon.

Futhermore, of course people complain about more range on it. In H2, snipers were barely effective many times. BRs could easily keep you out of zoom, and there was no way you could noscope from across the map consistently. But even unscoped BRs are very accurate and easy to use, so they were more powerful than snipers. It didn't matter if you got knocked out of zoom with a BR. Not to mention, BRs shooting across the map can kill almost as fast as a sniper can kill with two body shots. That's quite powerful. You should at least have to team fire to get that quick of a kill.

IMO, BRs aren't all that skillful. Yes, more so than other weapons, but still, not much. If you want to start with the most skillful weapon in the game, tell Bungie to make a carbine gametype where they place carbines all over the map and starts on maps that support it. Or, start with snipers and have 2x OS, making 2 HS necessary or extra body shots, if you're so concerned about skill.

  • 10.13.2008 11:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Don't get too mad at me when I say this; but I think the BR would have been better if it had been single shot instead of burst. I think it would be a lot more powerful and accurate and would shoot a lot faster. I'm not saying that the BR sucks. It doesn't. I'm just saying that it would make the BR much better. If you want to see what I'm talking about, watch the Halo 2 demo on YouTube or something. The BR in the demo is single shot and kicks rump. And check out the super melee attack Master Chief uses on a brute during the demo. It's AWESOME!

  • 10.13.2008 11:47 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

br is fine everybody shut up

  • 10.13.2008 1:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: fifthderelicte
I don't want the BR upgraded for the whole reason of skill. If they tighten the spread, it's just another easy gun to use. Seriously, how is the BR difficult? I've already stated this several times before, but the BR really doesn't take much skill.

Tightening the spread would give it longer range, not make it easier to use; auto aim makes it easier to use. I don't see how focusing the spread is a bad thing.

People want more range on a weapon that is so simple to kill with and get headshots with. If they made it much more like the carbine and made the burst a non-factor (or implement Breezy's idea), that's fine. But so many people want a more powerful BR while still keeping it a skilless weapon.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it skill-less. When you are having a 1v1 against someone with another BR, your own aim and dexterity are definitely factors in the outcome. Unfortunately, so is the randomness.

But even unscoped BRs are very accurate and easy to use, so they were more powerful than snipers. It didn't matter if you got knocked out of zoom with a BR. Not to mention, BRs shooting across the map can kill almost as fast as a sniper can kill with two body shots. That's quite powerful. You should at least have to team fire to get that quick of a kill.

I do not think it is a bad thing that people with Snipers should feel uncomfortable using them at medium range. The Sniper Rifle is, after all, meant to be a long range weapon.

IMO, BRs aren't all that skillful.
I'd say that's true when your opponent spawns with a crappy weapon like the Assault Rifle. But aim is definitely important when going up against someone with another Battle Rifle or power weapon.

Posted by: AllAceswild24
br is fine everybody shut up

"No u"

[Edited on 10.13.2008 1:53 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2008 1:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

I was going under the assumption that the only thing they would change is the spread. If that were the case, it would make an already easy weapon even easier. As it is, the BR is simple to use. My biggest problem with it is its ease of headshots. Yes, 1v1 BR battles take skill, but when it comes to downing an opponent once their shields are down, it's lame. And even in 1v1s, if you're team firing, you have a greater chance to hit because you fire three rounds. I agree that if they changed other things along with spread, they could increase the skill. However, a lot of people usually focus on spread. And even with autoaim toned down, the burst would still keep headshots relatively easy, and even easier at longer ranges with decreased spread.

Sure. Snipers should feel uncomfortable at medium ranges. But if you think back to H2's BR, it was wicked from Burial Mounds (behind rockets to base), Hang em High tower to tower, etc. Those were all pretty good distances, and snipers were practically useless from that range. Just imagine not being able to snipe from base on Valhalla to hill. That's about the longest range of sight you'll get on that map, and the sniper will be near worthless. I think you should be able to ping snipers out at that distance, and if you team fire or they're slow, kill them in 5-8 shots, but to 4 shot them is ridiculous (again, based off H2's standards). And most maps don't have that large of a line of sight. The only maps that have a vast line of sight over the whole field is Avalanche and Sandtrap (and Standoff, but only if you're playing snipers). Everything else has one or two large lines of sight, if any at all. Now the BR mops up the whole map. Like I said, I agree that it should be accurate enough to ping the snipers at that distance, and maybe even 5-6 shot them. Team firing would still kill very quickly (encouraging teamwork). But there's no need to make it the uber weapon like in H2 (I know that may not be what you're arguing, but people tend to go to extremes, and I'm stating why I want to be careful about how changes are made). And like I said, unscoped BRs are pretty easy to use. So to be able to ping a sniper at those long ranges is huge, as snipes can't work well at distances out of scope, while BRs can.

The only power weapon BRs take skill going against, provided you're at mid to long range, is the laser (but only if the other guy is quick) and the sniper (which you can easily ping out of scope). So I really don't agree that Brs take skill going against other power weapons. Maybe rockets or shotty up close, but that's your fault for using a BR there (even though I use the BR always). Unless you're talking about across Sandtrap, and the other person has a laser or sniper, the only thing the BR has to fear at mid range and beyond is another BR or carbine.



  • 10.13.2008 2:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Reptilian Rob
Im my humble opinion the BR goes against everything that Halo CE stood for. The originality, the freedom, the innovative aspects and above all the "feel" of Halo.

There I said it.
rob your not the only one that feels that way

  • 10.13.2008 4:13 PM PDT