Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: The Only BR Thread
  • Subject: The Only BR Thread
Subject: The Only BR Thread
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Shadow Wolf7347
to its an overpowered noob rifle as it is now

Noob rifle, huh? Tell me, why do you hate the Battle Rifle?

  • 11.01.2008 6:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i just dont like it all kills are stolo with it and it began the massive trash talk in halo 2 and 3

  • 11.01.2008 10:17 PM PDT

Important Question---Check This Out---

Your words ring true.

  • 11.02.2008 12:23 AM PDT

I think the battlerife is fine

  • 11.02.2008 7:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
Posted by: fifthderelicte
BR vs. carbine

3 kill vs. 2 kill per clip
9 kills per weapon pickup vs. 6
4 separately aimed shots vs. 7-8 (I forget)
Fires 3 HS capable projectiles (only one needs to hit head) vs. 1
Higher chance to do some damage due to burst vs. hit or miss weapon
Don't have to aim for head (chest/neck/or head, and let burst carry) vs. aim for head
Trail not as visible vs. bright green trail that lights up your position
2.0 second cooldown time (reload) vs. 2.4 second
Crosshairs converge closer to the center making it visually easier to aim vs. not as easy

This is why they should eliminate the 3 bullet burst fire, and make the BR a single shot, or atleast eliminate the BR and increase the Magnum's range with an addition of a scope. One thing I hated about Halo 2 when it came out was the easy difficulty of getting BR headshots. Instead of fixing this, Bungie decided that in order to make the BR harder they had to make the spread wider where all the bullets must hit leading up to the headshot. No Bungie. Headshots are still too easy. Actually, now they are easier. You only made getting a 4 shot harder, or should I say more inconsistent and more frustrating. 4-shotting is not very common anyway. The most common use of the BR is stealing and finishing off kills with headshots, which at the moment and since Halo 2, is way too easy.

It may have been an accident that the M6D functioned as it did in Halo:CE, but it was no accident that the M6D functionality was left as it was. This is because it was extremely fun to use, which is a reason why many disagree about the random spread. Balanced or unbalanced, it didn't matter since in Pro settings everyone used the same weapon making it competitive and therefore more rewarding and fun to play. MLG tries to bring back this style, but the current burst-fire BR definitely doesn't help.

The way I see it, the M6D made Halo a good game. Without it, I have a hard time believing that the Halo Trilogy would be as popular as it is now.

I should also point out that both the Carbine and the Magnum can headshot without your reticule over the head. This is because they have a random element. I have many times betrayed my teammate or finished him off by aiming at the enemy but having a stray bullet hit my teammate. Now, this happens with practically all weapons, including the BR, Shotgun, AR, etc, but this can be frustrating since it gives the opponent an undeserved kill.

I probably should add that a random spread does not limit the range, but makes the range inconsistent. You can limit the range without making it shoot randomly. The problem is limiting range of single-shot weapons like the Carbine. It is understandable why they would randomize the bullets, but I disagree. I think the range should be limited simply by the speed of the bullets forcing the gamer to lead the target instead of guessing where to lead the target and hoping to get lucky like it is now.

What?! You disagree Berserker? Yeah, I already know that. I think I'll stay out of your current discussion.


Truth.

That is why I hate the BR. It is way too easy to HS, and it is rather random for 4 shotting, especially when you have a connection like mine. All I'm saying is that if you want the BR more accurate, please take away the burst affect and the ease of use. If you added more range to it, it would now be extremely easy to get close range clean ups as well as long range four shots. At least make the player use some skill. Or, like you said, make the magnum better. It absolutely sucks with it's randomness. I've centered it on the head in SWAT and not gotten kills, and I've been off the mark and gotten headshots. It's so slow and can't compete with any other weapon. It has so much potential, but it sucks.

I agree with you about limiting range without randomness, but based on bullet speed. That would add much more element of skill to the game. I know that some bullets disappear after a certain range, which can also help to limit the range.

The BR is too easy to use, and many (not all, like Breezy) want to make it more accurate while keeping it's ease of use and HS capability the same. I don't like that idea at all. We saw how easy H2's BR was ( I know there were many other factors there too, however). I despise the BR.

  • 11.02.2008 8:12 AM PDT

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

I love my AR. If the AR is my basic weapon, then the SMG is my specialist gun. The BR is rigged against me. I can shoot a guy three times in the head and melee, then he lives. I can melee a guy then shoot him twice to the boddy and he lives. I can even see my enemies surviving headshots. In a game full of uncertainty, trust your game to a specialist weapon. The AR and BR are not specialist weapons. I seriously think bungie has rigged the game against me. I get more WTB moments than anyone else. I still say AR>BR, because most fighting is at short range.

  • 11.02.2008 8:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Shadow Wolf7347
i just dont like it all kills are stolo with it and it began the massive trash talk in halo 2 and 3

Massive trash talk was not the result of adding the BR. People trash talked in Halo 1 (yes, your beloved Halo PC) and they trash talk in Halo 3. It's the internet. Welcome.

Posted by: fifthderelicte
I agree with you about limiting range without randomness, but based on bullet speed.

Interesting idea. That would certainly give people pause about using the weapon at ridiculously long range. However, the downside to this is that your connection to the host would make the lead vary considerably.

I'm sure we've all had those games where we see our bullets hit someone, but deal no damage, because by virtue of the lead and lousy host, our bullets actually landed somewhere behind the guy. This is what I fear would happen at medium-long range should this idea be implemented.

I know that some bullets disappear after a certain range, which can also help to limit the range.
I don't like this. If people are capable of placing the center of their targeting reticle on a guy's head from one base on Valhalla to another, I believe they deserve the headshot. That's basically achieving pixel accuracy - extremely difficult to do, if you've ever compared the control a mouse offers to the control of a...controller.

Posted by: mortabunt
I still say AR>BR, because most fighting is at short range.

I'm calling BS on this. If most fighting was done at short range, no one would care about the BR spread and more people would care about the AR spread.

  • 11.02.2008 8:31 AM PDT

I think the real problem isn't the BR, but, instead is that the AR is a bit too powerfull. the BR is the supirior weapon yet in a close combat situation, the AR will win over a BR. It even has a more powerful melee I think.

  • 11.02.2008 10:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

I understand what you're saying, Breezy. With online play, that idea would be annoying. However, that's kind of how it is now at particular ranges with the hitscan. Not to mention, for MLG tournaments this would work fine as they do locals.

But honestly, I agree that if you can aim properly you should get the hit. My only qualm is if they make it more accurate and keep the burst with ease of use HS. Take out some of the autoaim or whatever it is, reduce the reticle size, or whatever. If it's more accurate, make HS take skill to get. Don't allow the strafing headshots from H2 and H3.

  • 11.02.2008 11:43 AM 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: Breezy131
However, the downside to this is that your connection to the host would make the lead vary considerably.

My understanding is that bullets don't register when information is lost while sending it across the internet. It basically takes what happens on your xbox and sends it to the other xboxes. Range shouldn't have anything to do with it, but maybe your right. Either way, it's one of the major inconsistencies of Halo 3 online, and yet, Bungie has not looked into fixing this as far as I know. Everything is random, anyway, so why can't they just simply predict where the bullets should be on the other xbox when it has packet lost. You would think it would be an easy fix. I guess Bungie thinks the gameplay is perfectly fine since all they do is make changes to the playlists and ranking/Exp system.

  • 11.02.2008 12:03 PM PDT

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

Posted by: Breezy131
Posted by: Shadow Wolf7347
i just dont like it all kills are stolo with it and it began the massive trash talk in halo 2 and 3

Massive trash talk was not the result of adding the BR. People trash talked in Halo 1 (yes, your beloved Halo PC) and they trash talk in Halo 3. It's the internet. Welcome.

Posted by: fifthderelicte
I agree with you about limiting range without randomness, but based on bullet speed.

Interesting idea. That would certainly give people pause about using the weapon at ridiculously long range. However, the downside to this is that your connection to the host would make the lead vary considerably.

I'm sure we've all had those games where we see our bullets hit someone, but deal no damage, because by virtue of the lead and lousy host, our bullets actually landed somewhere behind the guy. This is what I fear would happen at medium-long range should this idea be implemented.

I know that some bullets disappear after a certain range, which can also help to limit the range.
I don't like this. If people are capable of placing the center of their targeting reticle on a guy's head from one base on Valhalla to another, I believe they deserve the headshot. That's basically achieving pixel accuracy - extremely difficult to do, if you've ever compared the control a mouse offers to the control of a...controller.

Posted by: mortabunt
I still say AR>BR, because most fighting is at short range.

I'm calling BS on this. If most fighting was done at short range, no one would care about the BR spread and more people would care about the AR spread.


I call blam you, because the game is short range. I can play almost everything with ARAM, and I often use AR only durring BR games, and I come out with most kills usually. EVen on places like construct and valhalla.

  • 11.02.2008 1:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Rawberry
I think the real problem isn't the BR, but, instead is that the AR is a bit too powerfull. the BR is the supirior weapon yet in a close combat situation, the AR will win over a BR. It even has a more powerful melee I think.

No, having powerful close range weapons is a good thing. Even Halo 1's Pistol wasn't a good close range weapon.

Posted by: fifthderelicte
But honestly, I agree that if you can aim properly you should get the hit. My only qualm is if they make it more accurate and keep the burst with ease of use HS. Take out some of the autoaim or whatever it is, reduce the reticle size, or whatever. If it's more accurate, make HS take skill to get. Don't allow the strafing headshots from H2 and H3.

Yes, steepening the learning curve would enrich the experience. Give the players another reward (in this case, a four shot kill) to work for. With the current auto-aim and magnetism, it's not too hard to get one as long as your enemy is less than thirty or forty meters.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
it's one of the major inconsistencies of Halo 3 online, and yet, Bungie has not looked into fixing this as far as I know. Everything is random, anyway, so why can't they just simply predict where the bullets should be on the other xbox when it has packet lost. You would think it would be an easy fix. I guess Bungie thinks the gameplay is perfectly fine since all they do is make changes to the playlists and ranking/Exp system.

Well, the inconsistencies do get quite annoying, and it really does seem like other games play much more smoothly online. However, I am not an expert on network engineering and cannot give comment.

Posted by: mortabunt
I call blam you, because the game is short range. I can play almost everything with ARAM, and I often use AR only durring BR games, and I come out with most kills usually. EVen on places like construct and valhalla.

I doubt that what you say is the case. If you aren't lying, however:

You shouldn't have an instinctual hatred of a weapon. Hating the Battle Rifle is just as stupid as hating the Assault Rifle.

Second, just because the game involves close range combat doesn't mean that's what the whole game is about. I hate to bring stats into this, but most people's service records include the Battle Rifle as the top tool of destruction. People pick up weapons that strike a good balance of effectiveness and ease of use, and the Battle Rifle falls into this category naturally.

The Assault Rifle is easy to use, but not effective in many situations.

  • 11.02.2008 2:43 PM PDT

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

Posted by: Breezy131
Posted by: Rawberry
I think the real problem isn't the BR, but, instead is that the AR is a bit too powerfull. the BR is the supirior weapon yet in a close combat situation, the AR will win over a BR. It even has a more powerful melee I think.

No, having powerful close range weapons is a good thing. Even Halo 1's Pistol wasn't a good close range weapon.

Posted by: fifthderelicte
But honestly, I agree that if you can aim properly you should get the hit. My only qualm is if they make it more accurate and keep the burst with ease of use HS. Take out some of the autoaim or whatever it is, reduce the reticle size, or whatever. If it's more accurate, make HS take skill to get. Don't allow the strafing headshots from H2 and H3.

Yes, steepening the learning curve would enrich the experience. Give the players another reward (in this case, a four shot kill) to work for. With the current auto-aim and magnetism, it's not too hard to get one as long as your enemy is less than thirty or forty meters.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
it's one of the major inconsistencies of Halo 3 online, and yet, Bungie has not looked into fixing this as far as I know. Everything is random, anyway, so why can't they just simply predict where the bullets should be on the other xbox when it has packet lost. You would think it would be an easy fix. I guess Bungie thinks the gameplay is perfectly fine since all they do is make changes to the playlists and ranking/Exp system.

Well, the inconsistencies do get quite annoying, and it really does seem like other games play much more smoothly online. However, I am not an expert on network engineering and cannot give comment.

Posted by: mortabunt
I call blam you, because the game is short range. I can play almost everything with ARAM, and I often use AR only durring BR games, and I come out with most kills usually. EVen on places like construct and valhalla.

I doubt that what you say is the case. If you aren't lying, however:

You shouldn't have an instinctual hatred of a weapon. Hating the Battle Rifle is just as stupid as hating the Assault Rifle.

Second, just because the game involves close range combat doesn't mean that's what the whole game is about. I hate to bring stats into this, but most people's service records include the Battle Rifle as the top tool of destruction. People pick up weapons that strike a good balance of effectiveness and ease of use, and the Battle Rifle falls into this category naturally.

The Assault Rifle is easy to use, but not effective in many situations.


The Assault Rifle has efficiency in SRB, but it is not great because it is a starting gun. It is very strange that I love the starting gun. I dislike the BR because it is not needed for my battle abilities, and other people seem rigged to be better with it. I am not bad with it, it's around my third TOD, I just dislike it. I call it a necessary evil, like dying of age or sickness.

  • 11.02.2008 3:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: mortabunt
The Assault Rifle has efficiency in SRB

What is "SRB"?

Anyway, I think you missed the point of my post. I was showing that range combat tends to center around medium/long range, not trying to start a discussion on what you beliefs are.

  • 11.02.2008 4:04 PM PDT

Guns dont kill people, they kill The Covenant

That;s the best point ive heard all day

  • 11.02.2008 4:06 PM PDT

Guns dont kill people, they kill The Covenant

I think the BR is only good in Campaign and Team SWAT that's just my opinion though

  • 11.02.2008 4:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

plasma pistol all the way woot!

  • 11.02.2008 4:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

no halo pc games ive ever played in have had trash talk and hate speech as in halo 3 in pc u had the ocasional white trash calling people n******* dont speak of what you dont no and dont pick a rnadom person to debate because you cant beat other people on this forum

  • 11.02.2008 8:48 PM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage

There is a difference: I'm not an idiot. I also don't make things up and then blame them on the developer. I also don't make whiny, ass-hurt, comments on a forum when something doesn't go my way in a video game. I don't complain about netcode when I don't know anything about it and even after you've been proven wrong by countless people (some of which agreed with you outside of that issue) disappear until you find another way to make yourself look stupid.

The only thing that DanBauer and I share is that we are opinionated.
What exactly has DanBauer "made up" and then complained about?

And you don't need to be an expert on netcode to acknowledge and complain about how bad it is in Halo 3. The bullet registration issues (sniper shots not registering, BR bullets not 'existing' and getting refunded) and the reload glitch both need to be fixed. These issues can even occur over LAN. How is that acceptable?

I think it's abnormal to comment on something that you don't have first-hand knowledge about. I think it's abnormal when people offer opinions on games they haven't played. DanBauer was talking about Halo 3's gameplay before he had even experienced the gameplay. Or even seen someone play the game. You love to accuse people of things without showing any evidence, don't you?

That's like me giving my opinion on what it's like to be Australian because I've seen Australian people. Hahaha, of all the things you could have compared, you decide to go with this?

That's really a piss poor comparison. If you didn't like random variables screwing you over why did you play Halo? Halo CE had them. Why have you continued to play Halo? All 3 Halo games are filled with random variables all just waiting to dick you over. All FPS from W3D to Halo 3 have had random variables that could negatively affect your outcome. I don't see why you seem to have a problem with them now. Any game with a "shotgun" typically has random variables. While missing or losing an encounter because of a "random" variable isn't fun (I doubt anyone would argue that) it is my opinion that it is necessary in order to limit the range of a weapon. If for some reason you still don't think it's necessary...FPS games are not for you since they all use it. You need to think more about game design if you think that randomness is the only way to limit the range of a weapon.

They don't miss for no reason. They miss for the reason you already know. You just happen not to like it. Randomness is not a (good) reason.

You can mention that a position has been argued but it serves no purpose. Just like the people you were criticizing. I do understand your position now. I just think it's wrong. I also think it's rather foolish to expect a game without random variables when you've always played a FPS with random variables. Where were the complaints before? Why weren't you on B.net harping about how Halo CE is borked because the shotgun has random bullet spread? Or the AR? Or the dozens of other weapons that Bungie has put "random" variables on?

You don't have a problem with random variables. You have a problem with them adding random variables to a weapon you like. Unless you want to go on record now that you think that the AR and shotgun shouldn't have bullet spread and make it stronger than it is currently.
I will go on on record actually. There is a very simple way to limit the range of a weapon without a random spread.

I'll use the shotgun as my example, though this can easily apply to the BR. Instead of the bullets exiting the barrel at a randomly determined position and angle, why not keep the angle and position consistent for every shot? The bullets would always exit in the same pattern, and always at the same angle away from the barrel. Think of a cone shaped spread, but the shape of the cone is always consistent.

With this design, the shotgun would always take the same amount of shots to kill, as long as range stayed consistent.

2 meters would always be a 1sk
4 meters would always be a 2sk
etc.

The shotgun would still have a spread. Just not a random spread.

See what I'm getting at? It's the BR's unnecessary lack of CONSISTENCY that I want changed.

  • 11.02.2008 10:09 PM PDT

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
Posted by: Breezy131
However, the downside to this is that your connection to the host would make the lead vary considerably.

My understanding is that bullets don't register when information is lost while sending it across the internet. It basically takes what happens on your xbox and sends it to the other xboxes. Range shouldn't have anything to do with it, but maybe your right. Either way, it's one of the major inconsistencies of Halo 3 online, and yet, Bungie has not looked into fixing this as far as I know. Everything is random, anyway, so why can't they just simply predict where the bullets should be on the other xbox when it has packet lost. You would think it would be an easy fix. I guess Bungie thinks the gameplay is perfectly fine since all they do is make changes to the playlists and ranking/Exp system.


I suspect the reason for shots not registering is due to discrepancies between host & client as opposed to packet loss. Theoretically it would be possible to test this in a custom game by having one player run in a straght line while the other BRs him. You can then watch where the bullets go in theatre from both perspectives (host & off-host videos). If the bullets don't land in the same place you have your answer. I think I might try this.

I know that I have actually 4 shotted my friend before in a custom 1v1 off-host but watching the video only 7 or 8 bullets hit on my screen as I was over-leading my shot for the game mechanic. I would have to assume that all the bullets hit on his screen though.

[Edited on 11.03.2008 5:56 AM PST]

  • 11.03.2008 5:40 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: Nokterne
What exactly has DanBauer "made up" and then complained about?


Hmmm, his whole discussion about packet loss that he completely fabricated and even after being told by Bungie engineers and regular members alike that he was wrong. Blaming Bungie solely for his "bullet refund" problems when it was more his terrible connection than anything else. Talking about "optimizing the netcode" when that is the most retarded thing you could possibly say. He constantly demonstrates he doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about and yet he continues to complain. And after he's proven wrong by countless people he simply disappears into the darkness until the next opportunity to make himself look idiotic arises.

And you don't need to be an expert on netcode to acknowledge and complain about how bad it is in Halo 3. The bullet registration issues (sniper shots not registering, BR bullets not 'existing' and getting refunded) and the reload glitch both need to be fixed. These issues can even occur over LAN. How is that acceptable?

Yeah, but you might want to understand the basics of it so you don't make yourself look foolish. He's been unable to do that for several years. He talks constantly about things he doesn't understand and then can't believe that he's wrong. His type of ignorance is the worst kind because his stupidity is infectious to other people because they listen to him. He's a charlatan. And I've never said that I support network issues not being fixed. I also understand (since I actually know a little bit about internet architecture) that it's not exactly easy. I understand the difference between UDP and TCP (and how it affects internet gaming) or at least enough to not make the same type of misconceptions that DanBauer made on countless occasions.

You love to accuse people of things without showing any evidence, don't you?

If you can get into the Halo 3 Beta forum to find the thread, be my guest. I'd love to do it for you but alas I don't have that kind of clearance. I can however have a couple (now) moderators come in here and validate what I'm saying as true because they were there watching him do it shaking their head along with me.

Hahaha, of all the things you could have compared, you decide to go with this?

It was nonsensical on purpose. It was a demonstration of the kind of quack comparisons that he oh so loves to make. Kinda like "Street Fighter on XBLA just 'optimized their netcode'...why can't you optimize your netcode Bungie?" God, I wish I could find that thread again. Pure DanBauer stupidity at its finest.

You need to think more about game design if you think that randomness is the only way to limit the range of a weapon.

Nice strawman. I didn't say it was the only way to limit range. I said it was traditionally one of the most used ways to limit range. Hell, Bungie could make it so that an AR bullet can only travel exactly [X] WUs before the bullet simply disappears. That's one way to limit the range of weapons (and it was used in the early stages of FPS). However, that way sucks. It draws an imaginary line in the sand where people can exploit it. Randomness and bullet spread is a far better way because it allows the weapon to still be partially effective while controlling for range because it gains or loses effectiveness depending on distance. Again, there is a good reason why many FPS games have used this type of "randomness" for decades.

Randomness is not a (good) reason.

Then why are you still playing FPS games? They all have it.

I will go on on record actually. There is a very simple way to limit the range of a weapon without a random spread.

I'll use the shotgun as my example, though this can easily apply to the BR. Instead of the bullets exiting the barrel at a randomly determined position and angle, why not keep the angle and position consistent for every shot? The bullets would always exit in the same pattern, and always at the same angle away from the barrel. Think of a cone shaped spread, but the shape of the cone is always consistent.

With this design, the shotgun would always take the same amount of shots to kill, as long as range stayed consistent.

2 meters would always be a 1sk
4 meters would always be a 2sk
etc.

The shotgun would still have a spread. Just not a random spread.

See what I'm getting at? It's the BR's unnecessary lack of CONSISTENCY that I want changed.


Your suggestion works just fine with a single shot weapon, which coincidentally I'd imagine it's why the H3 shotgun operates like that or as far as I can tell something similar. However, it fails hard when looking at weapons that either fire in a burst shot or in full automatic. Add in the fact that your suggestion to make the degree of deviation a static wouldn't really change anything to the current BR. People would still constantly miss shots at range because of the spread. Even if you made the BR spread as such: Bullet 1: .10WUs deviance at 0 degrees; Bullet 2: .20WUs deviance at 135 degrees; Bullet 3: .30WUs deviance at 225 degrees; it would provide you with no more "consistent" gameplay than is already offered. Actually, IMO it would be far worse. Why? If such as system did exist is Halo 3; I'd simply always strafe to my 'left' (your 'right') because I know the 3rd bullet is going to deviate at an angle to the opposite side making it far more likely for it to miss me at range. Even if Bungie didn't outright come out and say "bullet 3 deviates at 225 degrees" it wouldn't exactly take long for people to figure out the system. A static variance isn't always better than a dynamic one.

~B.B.

[Edited on 11.03.2008 11:00 AM PST]

  • 11.03.2008 9:02 AM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
~B.B.


Oh good, you're back. Now you can answer my question about weapon ranges. However, since I assume you will simply avoid the issue again, I'll do it for you; it was a rhetorical question anyway.

The game focuses heavily on close-range bullet-hoses that take little physical skill to use at full capacity and little tactical skill to use advantageously. Now, seeing as how you failed that simple task, I'm hesitant to ask you to perform another, but I'll give it a try:

Explain to me why a game that focuses so much on close range combat (Halo 3) is better than one that provides equal weighting to all ranges.

Here's an article I wrote up that you can refer to if you're having trouble understanding my side of the issue: http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=16622396

[Edited on 11.03.2008 9:54 AM PST]

  • 11.03.2008 9:53 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: TheBigShow
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
~B.B.


Oh good, you're back. Now you can answer my question about weapon ranges. However, since I assume you will simply avoid the issue again, I'll do it for you; it was a rhetorical question anyway.

The game focuses heavily on close-range bullet-hoses that take little physical skill to use at full capacity and little tactical skill to use advantageously. Now, seeing as how you failed that simple task, I'm hesitant to ask you to perform another, but I'll give it a try:

Explain to me why a game that focuses so much on close range combat (Halo 3) is better than one that provides equal weighting to all ranges.

Here's an article I wrote up that you can refer to if you're having trouble understanding my side of the issue: http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=16622396


Oh good, you're just as dense as I predicted you would be. Since you make the non sequitur fallacy of assuming that all those 'close range bullet hoses' are present in a given game. In addition to not all those close ranged weapons being present, you also fail to take into account how many of each type of weapon is present on a map. So, just like I said you offered a loaded question. Thanks for proving me correct.

And just for kicks and giggles you really think that you can adequately 1sk everyone with either the beam rifle or sniper rifle at over 3 times the distance you can 4sk kill someone with the BR? Or...the range in which the sniper rifle is 100% effective (which you proposed for your question) is not nearly as far as you try to justify it as. Regardless of whether you could or not (and for the record you can't) those weapons are limited by their availability and ammo capacity.

Halo has NEVER been equally weighted in amount of battles taking place at different ranges. Your argument is flawed both by your logic and precedent.

~B.B.

[Edited on 11.03.2008 10:55 AM PST]

  • 11.03.2008 10:54 AM PDT

Posted by: BerserkerBarage

Oh good, you're just as dense as I predicted you would be. Since you make the non sequitur fallacy of assuming that all those 'close range bullet hoses' are present in a given game. In addition to not all those close ranged weapons being present, you also fail to take into account how many of each type of weapon is present on a map. So, just like I said you offered a loaded question. Thanks for proving me correct.

And just for kicks and giggles you really think that you can adequately 1sk everyone with either the beam rifle or sniper rifle at over 3 times the distance you can 4sk kill someone with the BR? Or...the range in which the sniper rifle is 100% effective (which you proposed for your question) is not nearly as far as you try to justify it as. Regardless of whether you could or not (and for the record you can't) those weapons are limited by their availability and ammo capacity.

Halo has NEVER been equally weighted in amount of battles taking place at different ranges. Your argument is flawed both by your logic and precedent.

~B.B.


Where did I make the assumption those weapons are present in any given game? Once again, you are projecting assumptions into my arguments and avoiding actually responding. I listed most of the weapons in Halo 3 MP, nothing more. The effective range of the sniper rifle is easily 3 times that of the BR. If you think otherwise, you're misunderstanding the meaning of "effective."

Oh good! More insults to my intelligence; it really displays your superior intellect. Luckily, coming from you, it doesn't sting that much. I'm going to continue my attempts to have an intelligent discourse with you, despite every indication that you are more interested in professing your supposed intellect (although I have yet to see it) and dodging my questions.

So please, ignore everything else I've said if you must, tell me why a game that focuses on close range weapons so exclusively is more fair to the player than one that includes near-equal weighting at all ranges.

P.S. Halo CE had a much more balanced amount of battles taking place at every range, depending on the level.

[Edited on 11.03.2008 11:13 AM PST]

  • 11.03.2008 11:03 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: TheBigShow
Effective range means the range where you can realistically expect to use the weapon to its full potential.


This is in direct contradiction to...

Posted by: TheBigShow
The effective range of the sniper rifle is easily 3 times that of the BR. If you think otherwise, you're misunderstanding the meaning of "effective."


No, I quite understand the meaning of "effective" you just are using the same term 2 different ways. So which is it? Complete range of effectiveness or range in which the weapon can be 100% effective? Or hell, even the range in which the weapon can be 100% effective consistently?

I'll go ahead and clear things up for you. The range in which the sniper rifle can be consistently 100% accurate (when coupled with user error) is no where near 3 times the distance of it's BR counterpart.

Thank you for insulting my intelligence; it really displays your superior intellect. Luckily, coming from you, it doesn't sting that much. I'm going to continue my attempts to have an intelligent discourse with you, despite every indication that you are more interested in professing your supposed intellect (although I have yet to see it) and dodging my questions.

Hahahahaha how deliciously hypocritical. There's no room for you on the "high road" on this one. I'm not the one resorting to juvenile name calling (such as arrogant or foolish). I'm sorry that I saw through your poorly veiled attempt at a loaded question.

So please, ignore everything else I've said if you must, tell me why a game that focuses on close range weapons so exclusively is more fair to the player than one that includes near-equal weighting at all ranges.

P.S. Halo CE had battles taking place at every range, depending on the level.


Halo has always had a focus on close range combat. That's why in HCE you started with the AR and PP. Bungie also limited the amount of "medium" range weapons on certain levels. Like Prisoner for example. Halo 2 really focused on close range combat since you started with a dual wield weapon. Halo 3 actually focuses less on close range combat than the other two because the H3 AR has better range than it's HCE counterpart (or at least from what I remember).

PS, Halo 3 has battles taking place at every range, depending on the level.

~B.B.

[Edited on 11.03.2008 11:21 AM PST]

  • 11.03.2008 11:20 AM PDT