Not to be stereotypical but this is what I don't like about you guys. Some people want BXR back so that "Even if you don't get the first shot, you still have a chance at winning." And you want a BR to start with so you have a chance of fighting back against a spawn camp, stopping a flag run in Objective, etc. But if you give yourself the advantage, don't you deserve it? If your team takes control of Narrows, then don't they deserve to win? If your team is better than the other you'll win regardless what the map is. If you find starting with Assault Rifles unfair, well it's an equal "disadvantage." Both teams start with the same thing.
And on the BR spread and that type of stuff, the magical thing about Halo's sandbox is that every thing's balanced. Warthog on Standoff? Laser in the middle, an abundance of sticky grenades, two rockets, two brute shots, two power drains, two plasma pistols, three or more teammates, etc. So the BR spread allows the BR to be a useful mid-long range weapon but if you're using it to fire across Sandtrap, it shouldn't do any damage, that just wouldn't be fair. The BR isn't supposed to be an all powerful weapon and it's not, so people should stop whining about it. The Assault Rifle is the perfect starting weapon and should be used for all "non-hardcore" game types.
I'm one person. Not "you guys." I never said anything about BXR; I am glad it wasn't included in Halo 3. I also did not address the BR spread. While I think the BR's mid-range accuracy is less than what it should be, we both agree that it should not be as formidable a long-range weapon as it was in Halo 2. But your case against the BR does nothing to persuade me that the AR is the "perfect starting weapon and should be used for all 'non-hardcore' game types." I've always thought that players should start with both an AR and a BR; I've set up quite a few custom games where players spawn with four of every weapon surrounding them and let the teams fight over custom powerups. It's fun and there's nothing particularly hardcore about it except the players themselves. But I digress from the core issue; map balance.
You say that a team that fights to get an advantage deserves to win. That's usually true. But my measure of map balance, and I think most people who think about this kind of thing can agree, is how much skill it takes to obtain the leg up vs how much skill it takes to overcome the opponent. Simply put, it doesn't take much skill for a team to get to the top in Narrows and post there. It's mostly communication and blitzing. Weigh that against how hard it is for the other team to come back from the advance, and you have what I, a fairly reasonable person, would consider to be an unbalanced map. Of course I don't rant against Narrows, and I still play on it. The map imbalance isn't that significant. It's just there. Most people don't even take advantage of it. From what I can see from Vessel, however, is that it takes the worst (most imbalanced) parts of Narrows and amplifies them by not adding a lift or a low ground that can easily be ducked into soon after spawning. What's more pronounced is the fact that it seems players can't help but to rush the middle (unless they want to get naded out of existence in the tunnel). I'm pretty confident that for the average gamer (those who aren't 'hardcore,' but still care whether they win or lose), it would stop being fun after the third or fourth game.
Which is why I appeal now in the best and most persuasive way I can, when someone from Bungie just might read this and think "Hey, that guy has a good point."
...Nah.
[Edited on 03.28.2009 8:01 AM PDT]