Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)
  • Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)

The OP has good points. Stop hating because you like the BR, post reasons why you disagree, not altered movie quotes.[/quote]


------------------> Right below here V V V V VECHO 360 you are 100% right.
Here ill put some more arrows ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ if you need help reading the post you responded to.

Why would i reapeat what has already been said for the last 15 pages? Echo360s responce was well enough said maybe you should read that too. The OPs argument is is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. So i thought that the billy madison quote was appropriate for this situation, and it was.




[Edited on 07.17.2009 2:13 AM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 2:11 AM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach

The strongest Rivals are also the strongest allies.

i believe the br is fine, but the ar is too weak, vs the br.

  • 07.17.2009 2:26 AM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)

Posted by: BLUEelite52
The OP has good points. Stop hating because you like the BR, post reasons why you disagree, not altered movie quotes.[/quote]


------------------> Right below here V V V V VECHO 360 you are 100% right.
Here ill put some more arrows ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ if you need help reading the post you responded to.

Why would i reapeat what has already been said for the last 15 pages? Echo360s responce was well enough said maybe you should read that too. The OPs argument is is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. So i thought that the billy madison quote was appropriate for this situation, and it was.




I read your post, and no, that quote not appropriate at all. You aren't even saying why it is idiotic. Give me an in depth explanation, or else you are just acting out without reason. Stop quoting others quotes, it's pointless.

Please, post something RELEVANT. I don't want to read you think the post is idiotic again. I want to read WHY you think it's idiotic, or I'll just skip over your posts, not that you would care I suppose.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 2:30 AM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 2:29 AM PDT

I am of an open mind and I am willing to hear criticism. Also: That's stupid and you're stupid.

Posted by: Spartan 355
Posted by: BLUEelite52
The OP has good points. Stop hating because you like the BR, post reasons why you disagree, not altered movie quotes.[/quote]


------------------> Right below here V V V V VECHO 360 you are 100% right.
Here ill put some more arrows ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ if you need help reading the post you responded to.

Why would i reapeat what has already been said for the last 15 pages? Echo360s responce was well enough said maybe you should read that too. The OPs argument is is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. So i thought that the billy madison quote was appropriate for this situation, and it was.




I read your post, and no, that quote not appropriate at all. You aren't even saying why it is idiotic. Give me an in depth explanation, or else you are just acting out without reason. Stop quoting others quotes, it's pointless.

Please, post something RELEVANT. I don't want to read you think the post is idiotic again. I want to read WHY you think it's idiotic, or I'll just skip over your posts, not that you would care I suppose.


I think he is trying to say, he agrees with every post by ECHO 360. Not just that Billy Madison quote.

  • 07.17.2009 2:43 AM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Legendary Member

Hello! I'm a male!

Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
If Bungie were to stick with their own fiction (which I'm sure they will), this will not even be an issue. The BR did not exist in Halo: CE, therefore how could it possibly exist in a prequel? It wouldn't make any sense at all. "Oh, yeah, it is in the past, but it has weapons from the future..."

No, Bungie is much smarter than that.

And I'm sure someone will be like: "Well, in First Strike the Spartans that survived the Battle of Reach got BRs." And that is the point. The Spartans that made it through the Battle of Reach, the ones that the Master Chief helped rescue, didn't get the BR prototypes until after the story that Halo: Reach will tell, after the Pillar of Autumn arrived at the first Halo, after Reach had already been glassed and the battle lost.

So, for two reasons (other than the very accurate reasons given by the OP) the BR should not be in Reach.
1) It wasn't in Halo: CE.
2) It wasn't in use by the UNSC until after Reach according to the fiction.

If the BR is included in Reach, I will be extremely disappointed.

Failure! Bungie uses the halo 3 Covie army in Halo 3: ODST not the halo 2 set up! you fail! the brutes in ODST have power armour if halo 3: ODST takes time in halo 2 like they said they shouldn't have power armor and ther'd be elites in the game fighting both humans and brutes just like in halo 2! learn about bungie more b4 you post >.>

  • 07.17.2009 4:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

the BR is NOT to strong. the other standard weapon are just too WEAK.

  • 07.17.2009 5:14 AM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

S -- Spartan I Project---.....Ummm def best group on bungie.net today ....Come visit us on our Page Were always here to help

Heck even join if you want will except anyone whos willing to have some true fun on Halo!!!!! Visit Us At
http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/sip/group/joingroup.aspx

O and By the way Will Help u With Anything yes Anything!!! besides cheating lmao :]

k see this is wt annoys me in halo CE a few ppl complained o how -blam!- it was tht the pistol did so much damage in halo 2 ppl complained tht the smg suckd as a starter wepon and now in halo 3 ppl originally complained the br was to weak and wen bungie fixes it up they complain its to strong like wtf? no1 is ever happy look all the wepons in halo work with halo there all gud and they all hv there own uses plus on tht like AR hving not enough range im pretty sure theres at least five times in campaign when SGT Johnson and/or other marines say " Fire in Burts"! and it actully works! try it!!! i can practiclly snipe ppl with an AR i see nuthing wrong with the br at all but yes i dnt think it will be in Halo: Reach due to the time period

  • 07.17.2009 5:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

S -- Spartan I Project---.....Ummm def best group on bungie.net today ....Come visit us on our Page Were always here to help

Heck even join if you want will except anyone whos willing to have some true fun on Halo!!!!! Visit Us At
http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/sip/group/joingroup.aspx

O and By the way Will Help u With Anything yes Anything!!! besides cheating lmao :]

Posted by: PMR NYM
Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
If Bungie were to stick with their own fiction (which I'm sure they will), this will not even be an issue. The BR did not exist in Halo: CE, therefore how could it possibly exist in a prequel? It wouldn't make any sense at all. "Oh, yeah, it is in the past, but it has weapons from the future..."

No, Bungie is much smarter than that.

And I'm sure someone will be like: "Well, in First Strike the Spartans that survived the Battle of Reach got BRs." And that is the point. The Spartans that made it through the Battle of Reach, the ones that the Master Chief helped rescue, didn't get the BR prototypes until after the story that Halo: Reach will tell, after the Pillar of Autumn arrived at the first Halo, after Reach had already been glassed and the battle lost.

So, for two reasons (other than the very accurate reasons given by the OP) the BR should not be in Reach.
1) It wasn't in Halo: CE.
2) It wasn't in use by the UNSC until after Reach according to the fiction.

If the BR is included in Reach, I will be extremely disappointed.

Failure! Bungie uses the halo 3 Covie army in Halo 3: ODST not the halo 2 set up! you fail! the brutes in ODST have power armour if halo 3: ODST takes time in halo 2 like they said they shouldn't have power armor and ther'd be elites in the game fighting both humans and brutes just like in halo 2! learn about bungie more b4 you post >.>

Posted by: PMR NYM
Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
If Bungie were to stick with their own fiction (which I'm sure they will), this will not even be an issue. The BR did not exist in Halo: CE, therefore how could it possibly exist in a prequel? It wouldn't make any sense at all. "Oh, yeah, it is in the past, but it has weapons from the future..."

No, Bungie is much smarter than that.

And I'm sure someone will be like: "Well, in First Strike the Spartans that survived the Battle of Reach got BRs." And that is the point. The Spartans that made it through the Battle of Reach, the ones that the Master Chief helped rescue, didn't get the BR prototypes until after the story that Halo: Reach will tell, after the Pillar of Autumn arrived at the first Halo, after Reach had already been glassed and the battle lost.

So, for two reasons (other than the very accurate reasons given by the OP) the BR should not be in Reach.
1) It wasn't in Halo: CE.
2) It wasn't in use by the UNSC until after Reach according to the fiction.

If the BR is included in Reach, I will be extremely disappointed.

Failure! Bungie uses the halo 3 Covie army in Halo 3: ODST not the halo 2 set up! you fail! the brutes in ODST have power armour if halo 3: ODST takes time in halo 2 like they said they shouldn't have power armor and ther'd be elites in the game fighting both humans and brutes just like in halo 2! learn about bungie more b4 you post >.>

actully i think yur wrong bungie has already patched up on the issues and ?s ppl had abt odst's time period at tht point in halo 2 they WERE NOT FIGHTING( as in brutes and elites) this didnt take place till later on in the game also at tht time period the brutes thou on the verge of gaining power were still the first line of defense like grunts only more powerful( the brutes got crapped on basiclly) because the chain of command switch only happend because of the prophet cheif killed i forget witch one, this cause the prophets to switch gaurdians because they felt the elites no longer cud garentee there saftey. Also brute did have power armor in a sense in halo 2 just due to art work diffrences it obviously doesnt look like halo 3z power armor nor does it function the same but it is there

[Edited on 07.17.2009 6:05 AM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 6:03 AM PDT

Custom game nights? Contests? Great staff? Active members? What are you waiting for, join The Human Military.

Technically the BR isn't even in use yet when reach happened.

  • 07.17.2009 6:49 AM PDT

Clearly because the desktop uses a 3 prong plug and a laptop uses a 2 prong plug, the microwave will fill your car with tostitos better

The problem I have with removing the BR is that when you do something to one weapon or add a gun or remove a gun it indirectly effects the functionality of every other weapon and how every map that the weapon is on will play.

I know the OP said that a solution to this would be to add more carbines, but I think a lot of people fail to realize the BR is a worse medium range weapon than the Carbine. Now, I would have no problem replacing the BR with the carbine and upgrading the pistol except for that there really would only be one truly mid range weapon. Sure you could use the pistol at mid range, but people are going to go for the most versatile gun(s) in the game naturally. Right now using a BR you have a decent chance of killing a carbine weilding opponent of equal skill at slightly longer than mid range simply because of the spread of the carbine. The carbine should already rule the field over the BR, the only thing stopping it is limited spawns which I'm assuming would be increased if you were to take out the BR.

If you were to merely upgrade the pistol a little bit or decrease the range or power of the BR they won't hold a candle to the carbine at middle range, and neither weapon should beat the carbine at mid range already. This game does not need any more shorter range weapons. They are already plentiful.

The other problem that occurs is that the sniper rifles become extremely dominant. Now, you can say you can counteract this by throwing more carbines at the problem, but in reality that won't fix anything. The spread of the carbine makes it very inefficient at killing or even unscoping a sniper rifle as compared to the battle rifle. Neither weapon will kill a sniper easily at long range, but you can at least unscope a sniper or hope to keep them suppressed with the battle rifle. This task becomes harder with a carbine because of its spread. From what I can tell is that the OP wants more CQC (which is already more than plentiful IMO) and this is really achieving the opposite. By limiting the counters to long and mid range weapons you are not promoting short range combat. Your putting emphasis on power weapon control, and your turning the carbine into a power weapon because it will rule the middle range field and no half weapon like a nerfed BR or slightly buffed pistol will be able to counter it.

After thinking about it for a while, I think a big problem with the battle rifle (along with pretty much all weapons) is bullet magnetism. I'm fine with auto aim where your turn slows as your reticule turns red as it goes over an enemy. The problem comes in when after you fire a bullet they actually curve to hit your enemy.

For example, keep as much of your reticule of your battle rifle off of an enemy as possible while still keeping the reticule red. Shoot, and the majority of your bullets should will hit your opponent even if a lot of your reticule isn't on them. If bullet magnetism is reduced or gotten rid of it will make the BR harder to use, especially as the range your using it at increases. This will prevent it from being super effective and it will place the entire burden of aiming on the user and not some in game crutch.

  • 07.17.2009 7:34 AM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Gig4t3ch
Fact 2: European guys are hotter

I guess I can understand if you don't want to make out with guys in the US if they're so ugly, you should just say so though.

Posted by: Abes 2nd Account
I must say, EAKLE, you put up a good thread in support of the Popcorn shooter and other such weapons. But you forgot to tell me, what about realism? Of course halo is 500 years in the future, and all that hoo ha.

In CoD 5, the MP40 was a very liked gun because in burst fire it could be long range and it was a 2 bullet kill rapid fire, large clip gun. People hated the effectiveness of it, however in 1945 this was easily the most effective gun to have in combat, so why would they not make it so in the game?

For halo CE, the Pistol was the BR, i don't see how you don't get that but that is a fact and that is how it will always be, a BR with a new skin.

You're favouring the fact that the BR is more Effective than any other gun, when that is not true. An Assault Rifle will sometimes out to the BR holder at close range, the shotgun always will along with the sword. Dual wielding a Plasma pistol/rifle along with an SMG will usually out do a BR from about half the length of foundry. A sniper with any skill will headshot a BR weilder by using cover, poking there head out and quick scoping.

The BR's Main function is mobility, it can be used for any situation and it can be used effectively. Why is that a problem, a sniper at a very long range wont be effected by a BR, and an SMG at close range will shred the BR to pieces, Mid range is the BR's favourite, that is where it almost always wins. Whats the problem?


You skipped me. I want to know what you have to say.

  • 07.17.2009 7:48 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: I got the Edge
the BR is NOT to strong. the other standard weapon are just too WEAK.
After hearing this I agree. Who knows, maybe the BR would have been more balanced than the pistol in Halo CE. All the weapons were good in that game but the pistol was godly.

  • 07.17.2009 7:51 AM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Jiggly Luv

You think i dont understand why the BR is too useful? Again, have you even read my OP? Have you read all the replies?

The AR you described is very similar to the one i described.

Like i said earlier, making weapons more powerful makes people die way more often.

I am a frequent Magnum user. People do not run away from it. They often think something along the lines of "What is he doing?" then charge. It is an effective weapon, but it's small clip and shorter range balance that. I have been saying that for the past page or two. Br giving it a larger clip and slightly ferther range, it would become the new battle rifle, but would not be as effective.

You ask why this should revolve around close range (i have said twice that basing Halo on close range is not the point of this) and say it should be based on mid range. You have no logic as to why it should, you just say it should. I dont think it should be based on anything, and every weapon should be effective at some point in a battle. With the BR, which is effective at most points in the battle, people rarely grab other weapons.


Everyone, please read all the OP and the replies. I have stated before that when i say a BR wins at close range, i do not mean very cloes. I mean slightly outside of AR range. It can land a few hits before CQB weapons get in range, then a melee can win.

  • 07.17.2009 7:56 AM PDT

Lol

OP, let me ask you something since when is every weapon is supposed to be used every match? Bungie has stated every gun has their purpose. The BR was made for mid to long range combat. Bungie is not responsible if the players who play the game more than the majority master the BR to the extent to where they literally destroy everyone with it. Therefore Bungie has no obligation to change something that isn't broken. Bungie made the BR for mid to long range combat and it does its job. However, just because the people who play more than for a few hours master it and make it where it can be used in most situations doesn't mean that Bungie should fix something that isn't broken. If you want to play a complete fair game to where exactly every weapon is fair good luck findone one. Because their isn't.

  • 07.17.2009 8:10 AM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Killer4785
OP, let me ask you something since when is every weapon is supposed to be used every match? Bungie has stated every gun has their purpose. The BR was made for mid to long range combat. Bungie is not responsible if the players who play the game more than the majority master the BR to the extent to where they literally destroy everyone with it. Therefore Bungie has no obligation to change something that isn't broken. Bungie made the BR for mid to long range combat and it does its job. However, just because the people who play more than for a few hours master it and make it where it can be used in most situations doesn't mean that Bungie should fix something that isn't broken. If you want to play a complete fair game to where exactly every weapon is fair good luck findone one. Because their isn't.
I was a little unclear there. I think every weapon on teh map should have a reason to be used every game. For instance, in Team Slayer BRs, how often do you see the SMG picked up? What about the Spikers? The magnum? While the SMG and Spikers are used form time to time, the magnum is rarely ever picked up. Why is that? Dual SMG's and Spikers are more effective than the AR, but it seems people use only their BRs the entire match. They switch to an AR for CQB if needed, then after the battle they just reload and switch back to a BR.

  • 07.17.2009 8:18 AM PDT

Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: Killer4785
OP, let me ask you something since when is every weapon is supposed to be used every match? Bungie has stated every gun has their purpose. The BR was made for mid to long range combat. Bungie is not responsible if the players who play the game more than the majority master the BR to the extent to where they literally destroy everyone with it. Therefore Bungie has no obligation to change something that isn't broken. Bungie made the BR for mid to long range combat and it does its job. However, just because the people who play more than for a few hours master it and make it where it can be used in most situations doesn't mean that Bungie should fix something that isn't broken. If you want to play a complete fair game to where exactly every weapon is fair good luck findone one. Because their isn't.
I was a little unclear there. I think every weapon on teh map should have a reason to be used every game. For instance, in Team Slayer BRs, how often do you see the SMG picked up? What about the Spikers? The magnum? While the SMG and Spikers are used form time to time, the magnum is rarely ever picked up. Why is that? Dual SMG's and Spikers are more effective than the AR, but it seems people use only their BRs the entire match. They switch to an AR for CQB if needed, then after the battle they just reload and switch back to a BR.

Dual wielding comes at some major costs that balances it out with single wielding weapons, many people simply don't like the lack of mobillity that comes with dual wielding.

Naturally I am referring to the longer reload times, the need to pick your other weapon back up every time you melee, the lack of grenades, and the inabillity to quickly swap to your secondary should the need arise.

I've been seeing people doing it more online, but perhaps thats just because they want to give it a try after I've spikered their face a couple dozen times.

  • 07.17.2009 8:25 AM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Still, a single SMG is more powerful than an AR in CQB, and i bet anyone who knows about stuff like less damage and longer reloads for duals knows that.


OP has been updated. I suggest you all read it before attacking/flaming my idea more.

  • 07.17.2009 8:29 AM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I kind of like these suggestions.

  • 07.17.2009 8:31 AM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Weapon Sets.

Weapon set 1.
-BR (toned down version).
-Carbine (toned down version).
-No other changes.

Weapon set 2.
-SMA5B ~ Replaces AR
-SCP ~ Replaces M6G magnum.
-BR Removed.
-Carbine Removed.
-No other changes

Weapon set 3
-SCP ~ Replaces M6G magnum.
-Combat Rifle ~ Replaces Battle Rifle.
-Carbine (toned down version).
-No other changes.


Those all seem pretty reasonable to me. If anyone else has weapon set suggestions, feel free to post them.

  • 07.17.2009 8:53 AM PDT

Andrew Murray
Map:Aztec-Keep
Screenshot:ghosts
Video:32/0 Perfection

no removing a the battle rifle would open up the way to tho's noobs who use controller mods for the assault rifle, they don't work for the battle rifle because it already is a three shot burst.

  • 07.17.2009 8:54 AM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: arachnid223
no removing a the battle rifle would open up the way to tho's noobs who use controller mods for the assault rifle, they don't work for the battle rifle because it already is a three shot burst.
Whether the BR is here or not, people can still mode controllers for other guns. That wont ever change.

  • 07.17.2009 8:57 AM PDT

Andrew Murray
Map:Aztec-Keep
Screenshot:ghosts
Video:32/0 Perfection

yes but the battle rifle can counter that,whenever i fight someone with a assault rifle then end up killing me from hundreds of feet away and that is NOT sepposed to happen.

just to let you know they arn't chucking grenades either

  • 07.17.2009 9:00 AM PDT

-no excuses, play like a champion
-Never Give Up

Not having a BR is ridiculous. It actually takes a 4 shot to kill someone and you must have some skill to do that. This also includes strafing well to be able to pull a 4 shot. Now having AR's in the mix makes it a whole new game. personally i think the AR's should be removed from BR gametypes because then you have all these stupid no skilled dummys running around being able to kill someone with a skillfull weapon. And how much does it suck to start with an AR on say narrows and going into the middle with it. ITS DUMB. not exciting whatsoever for anyone except the nub that gets his "skilled" kill.

and for the record, i hate boosters, they make me angry.

  • 07.17.2009 9:20 AM PDT

If the BR was taken out all the bad players would complain about how overpwered the carbine is.
If you take the carbine out the sniper just dominates everything.
If you take the sniper out the game now sucks, seeing as it is all a close range melee-fest.
Please think about what you say before you say it.

Those who think the BR does not take more sskill than the AR. Sorry you're idiots. I will take this slowly. The AR is incapable of headshots, so you aim for the body, the largest target. When using a BR you aim at the head and fire 4 times. The head is a smaller target than the body. It is harder to aim at a small target than a large one. Therefore, the BR requires more skill.

Additionally the AR spread is very random, The victor of an AR duel is often randomly determined. Randomness is bad for gameplay.

I don't really want to bring rank into this, but most of those defending the AR ar below highest skill 40.

  • 07.17.2009 9:23 AM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: irish smurf89
Not having a BR is ridiculous. It actually takes a 4 shot to kill someone and you must have some skill to do that. This also includes strafing well to be able to pull a 4 shot. Now having AR's in the mix makes it a whole new game. personally i think the AR's should be removed from BR gametypes because then you have all these stupid no skilled dummys running around being able to kill someone with a skillfull weapon. And how much does it suck to start with an AR on say narrows and going into the middle with it. ITS DUMB. not exciting whatsoever for anyone except the nub that gets his "skilled" kill.

and for the record, i hate boosters, they make me angry.
If the AR takes "no skill", then what is the issue? Surely all "skilled players" can get away from a "noob" with an assault rifle.

As i said before, this has nothing to do with skill. Skill is a concept that can not be measured. Every weapon does take some skill, and is valuable in some way. The BR is just a more versatile weapon.

Why bring up boosters?

  • 07.17.2009 9:25 AM PDT