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.)

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

It's interesting that some players want a toned down BR, or no BR at all, and some want a more accurate BR with less spread.

  • 07.17.2009 9:25 AM PDT

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

i say that the BR is perfect as it is and that it should stay.

  • 07.17.2009 9:26 AM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: The_4rb1ter
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.
What's with all the people calling others idiots? Seriously, read the whole post before you post. The entire BR vs Carbine vs power weapons thing has been brought up and discussed already. It was even covered a bit in my OP.

  • 07.17.2009 9:27 AM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: flamedude
It's interesting that some players want a toned down BR, or no BR at all, and some want a more accurate BR with less spread.
If the BR gets a power or accuracy increase i'd give up playing to win in Halo altogether. It would be way too easy to four-shot across maps. People would die left and right.

The BR does work as it is now, and i'd play Reach if it didn't change, but i think it could be so much more enjoyable with a toned down BR, or some new gun to take it's place.

  • 07.17.2009 9:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: The EAKLE
If the BR gets a power or accuracy increase i'd give up playing to win in Halo altogether. It would be way too easy to four-shot across maps. People would die left and right.

The BR does work as it is now, and i'd play Reach if it didn't change, but i think it could be so much more enjoyable with a toned down BR, or some new gun to take it's place.


It seems that people dont read previous posts in threads, so I'll say it again.
Halo has always been based around a mid range weapon. In Halo:CE it was the the pistol, in Halo 2 is was the BR and in Halo 3 it is the BR. There has always been a type of weapons inequality and hierarchy in weaponry in the Halo franchise. The way that bungie has set the game up now, there are just many weapons on the bottom tier of this hierarchy.

Right now, say if I'm on the Pit standing on the bridge. There is a sniper on the tower firing at me. I can put shots on him from that distance. Because of the spread of the BR and the distance I am at, there is no way I would be guaranteed a 4-shot or even a 5 shot at that range. That is a full 5 seconds for that player to move and take cover. Filling the role of the BR in the middle tier of the hierarchy: to be able to stop a power weapon at mid range, but not defeat it at long.

Now, if I'm close combat with say an AR or a Shotgun, Mauler or even any Dual-Wield combo they're are able to kill a BR faster. Currently it takes 2 seconds of direct AR fire and melee to kill someone, and a like time for other weapons of the same tier/range/distance.

The BR is only fully effective mid range, especially in normal 100% damage game types and even more so with the normal bungie spawns - giving players spawns closer to attacking players, rather then spawning them back in their base in shotgun or near the tower lift, to use Pit as in example.

However, when you have huge maps like Standoff, Valhalla or any of those, BR completely dominates because of the lack of cover. This isn't a weapon design flaw though, this is a map design error.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 11:11 AM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 11:10 AM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: BlackArmorHira
Posted by: The EAKLE
If the BR gets a power or accuracy increase i'd give up playing to win in Halo altogether. It would be way too easy to four-shot across maps. People would die left and right.

The BR does work as it is now, and i'd play Reach if it didn't change, but i think it could be so much more enjoyable with a toned down BR, or some new gun to take it's place.


It seems that people dont read previous posts in threads, so I'll say it again.
Halo has always been based around a mid range weapon. In Halo:CE it was the the pistol, in Halo 2 is was the BR and in Halo 3 it is the BR. There has always been a type of weapons inequality and hierarchy in weaponry in the Halo franchise. The way that bungie has set the game up now, there are just many weapons on the bottom tier of this hierarchy.

Right now, say if I'm on the Pit standing on the bridge. There is a sniper on the tower firing at me. I can put shots on him from that distance. Because of the spread of the BR and the distance I am at, there is no way I would be guaranteed a 4-shot or even a 5 shot at that range. That is a full 5 seconds for that player to move and take cover. Filling the role of the BR in the middle tier of the hierarchy: to be able to stop a power weapon at mid range, but not defeat it at long.

Now, if I'm close combat with say an AR or a Shotgun, Mauler or even any Dual-Wield combo they're are able to kill a BR faster. Currently it takes 2 seconds of direct AR fire and melee to kill someone, and a like time for other weapons of the same tier/range/distance.

The BR is only fully effective mid range, especially in normal 100% damage game types and even more so with the normal bungie spawns - giving players spawns closer to attacking players, rather then spawning them back in their base in shotgun or near the tower lift, to use Pit as in example.

However, when you have huge maps like Standoff, Valhalla or any of those, BR completely dominates because of the lack of cover. This isn't a weapon design flaw though, this is a map design error.

I have already answered posts similar or identical to this. Of course a close range weapon will beet a BR if it is a straight up fire fight, but the player with the close quarters weapons has to get close first. If the BR lands two shots before the close quarter person is in range, he just need one more then a melee. A CQB should win at close range, however it is very possible for a BR to also win at this range, and all ranges farther out then that.

Now let's take your example with the sniper at the Pit. He pops up and is about to shoot you, so you fire at him a bit. He can either try to no scope you and likely end up dead, or he can retreat. Now, you know his position and can stop him from using that sniper. If he pops up to shoot someone all you have to do is spray at him a bit. You did not kill the sniper, but you made him useless.

  • 07.17.2009 11:52 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

Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: flamedude
It's interesting that some players want a toned down BR, or no BR at all, and some want a more accurate BR with less spread.
If the BR gets a power or accuracy increase i'd give up playing to win in Halo altogether. It would be way too easy to four-shot across maps. People would die left and right.

The BR does work as it is now, and i'd play Reach if it didn't change, but i think it could be so much more enjoyable with a toned down BR, or some new gun to take it's place.


If it became more accurate it would be harder to use. The only playlist where I get consistent 4 shots with the BR is MLG because of the damage increase. I usually am not close enough or miss a bullet or XBL takes effect and I end up having to take the 5th shot to kill someone in default. I find it interesting that so many players find the BR so easy to use and four shot all the time as claimed by many on these forums. To be honest, I don't believe it.

I'd actually favor a smaller BR spread as long as bullet magnetism is decreased. It means you have to be more accurate to kill someone, a lot more than most people are used to nowadays.

  • 07.17.2009 12:03 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Xx Mr Bill xX
Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: flamedude
It's interesting that some players want a toned down BR, or no BR at all, and some want a more accurate BR with less spread.
If the BR gets a power or accuracy increase i'd give up playing to win in Halo altogether. It would be way too easy to four-shot across maps. People would die left and right.

The BR does work as it is now, and i'd play Reach if it didn't change, but i think it could be so much more enjoyable with a toned down BR, or some new gun to take it's place.


If it became more accurate it would be harder to use. The only playlist where I get consistent 4 shots with the BR is MLG because of the damage increase. I usually am not close enough or miss a bullet or XBL takes effect and I end up having to take the 5th shot to kill someone in default. I find it interesting that so many players find the BR so easy to use and four shot all the time as claimed by many on these forums. To be honest, I don't believe it.

I'd actually favor a smaller BR spread as long as bullet magnetism is decreased. It means you have to be more accurate to kill someone, a lot more than most people are used to nowadays.
I dont believe it either. Im decent with a BR, but i rarely four shot at long range. Although it seems pretty easy at mid range. My issue with the BR is that if you miss a shot or two you can still get two 5-6 shot kills per clip.

What exactly is "bullet magnetism?"

[Edited on 07.17.2009 12:07 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 12:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: The EAKLE

I have already answered posts similar or identical to this. Of course a close range weapon will beet a BR if it is a straight up fire fight, but the player with the close quarters weapons has to get close first. If the BR lands two shots before the close quarter person is in range, he just need one more then a melee. A CQB should win at close range, however it is very possible for a BR to also win at this range, and all ranges farther out then that.

Now let's take your example with the sniper at the Pit. He pops up and is about to shoot you, so you fire at him a bit. He can either try to no scope you and likely end up dead, or he can retreat. Now, you know his position and can stop him from using that sniper. If he pops up to shoot someone all you have to do is spray at him a bit. You did not kill the sniper, but you made him useless.


I believe that when people make the comment about BR being able to dominate/win in a CQC weapon fight they are forgetting the other key aspects of gameplay. (ie: positioning, communication, coordination, grenading, distracting, etc). Of course, a CQC weapons is not meant to deal damage mid-range, that is the BR's place in the hierarchy. Obviously any one that knows if they have a mauler they will not rush out and begin rambo-ing, unloading their mauler on a BR carrier to get a kill, you must play smarter then that and make use of your surroundings and team mates, all it involves in a little meta-gaming. Different weapons require different strategies, and such is the hierarchy that Bungie has set up.

Stating that if you know where someone is, therefor making them useless is a ridiculous statement. Taking the example of the PIt (sniper on tower), there is more then enough cover to regain shields, pop up for a quick-scope, juke out a player, relocate, call the player on the bridge out, get into position for a flank, etc - the options are limitless. Perhaps you made him useless at that moment, but you can't just say that you neutralized him completely. It is impossible to completely predict what a player will do and more then likely the sniper will get out alive and live on to fight on the same life.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 12:12 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 12:08 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: BlackArmorHira
Posted by: The EAKLE

I have already answered posts similar or identical to this. Of course a close range weapon will beet a BR if it is a straight up fire fight, but the player with the close quarters weapons has to get close first. If the BR lands two shots before the close quarter person is in range, he just need one more then a melee. A CQB should win at close range, however it is very possible for a BR to also win at this range, and all ranges farther out then that.

Now let's take your example with the sniper at the Pit. He pops up and is about to shoot you, so you fire at him a bit. He can either try to no scope you and likely end up dead, or he can retreat. Now, you know his position and can stop him from using that sniper. If he pops up to shoot someone all you have to do is spray at him a bit. You did not kill the sniper, but you made him useless.



Stating that if you know where someone is, therefor making them useless is a ridiculous statement. Taking the example of the PIt (sniper on tower), there is more then enough cover to regain shields, pop up for a quick-scope, juke out a player, relocate, call the player on the bridge out, get into position for a flank, etc - the options are limitless. Perhaps you made him useless at that moment, but you can't just say that you neutralized him completely. It is impossible to completely predict what a player will do and more then likely the sniper will get out alive and live on to fight on the same life.
The sniper is not useless because you know where he is, it is useless because you know where he is, what he can do, and you can stop it. Not many players can quickly jump out of cover, find and then kill a player before the BR watching them gets some hits. Yes, the sniper can ask his team for backup, but so can the BR. It nearly evens out, which is ridiculous because one is a power weapon and the other is a starting weapon.

  • 07.17.2009 12:17 PM PDT

See you at the Aftermath!

PsychoSangheili

I've noticed that, contrary to your statement that the AR is useless, the AR is the appropriate counter to the BR if you know how to use it. I am not a huge fan of the BR, and it would be nice if it was removed, but I don't think that it is as unstoppable as you say. If you can get up close to a guy with a BR, most fully automatic weapons will counter it, and it also helps to move erratically, to reduce the chances of a headshot.

  • 07.17.2009 12:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: The EAKLE

The sniper is not useless because you know where he is, it is useless because you know where he is, what he can do, and you can stop it. Not many players can quickly jump out of cover, find and then kill a player before the BR watching them gets some hits. Yes, the sniper can ask his team for backup, but so can the BR. It nearly evens out, which is ridiculous because one is a power weapon and the other is a starting weapon.


The battle does not even out what so ever. If the sniper on the tower is being shot at all he needs to do is get behind the corner wall at the top of the tower. If the sniper's team isn't completely incompetent they would at least have someone on the stretch from rocket hall to green and that player/team mate could easily put a few shots on the opposing player on bridge .

From behind the wall the sniper has a clear view of rocket hall and sword stopping all flanks from those locations. Leaving his team to merely watch green if the player firing from bridge was planning a flank. The only resulting effect that player on bridge has on the sniper is his view and LoS of bridge, which what the BR is designed to do.

Also for players on the stretch from rocket hall to green, it would be easy to hold out there with normal ARs or any CQC weapon - not to mention the fact that there are 3 BRs on each side of Pit to begin with - The only way to deal with a mid range weapon is to use another mid-range weapon or higher on the hierarchy.

It is very impractical for one sole guy on a bridge firing at a power weapon to be able to force a full push, just from that one action.


[Edited on 07.17.2009 12:35 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 12:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: PsychoSangheili
I've noticed that, contrary to your statement that the AR is useless, the AR is the appropriate counter to the BR if you know how to use it. I am not a huge fan of the BR, and it would be nice if it was removed, but I don't think that it is as unstoppable as you say. If you can get up close to a guy with a BR, most fully automatic weapons will counter it, and it also helps to move erratically, to reduce the chances of a headshot.


Precisely, and it just takes the right amount of wit, positioning knowledge and meta-gaming to do so.

  • 07.17.2009 12:33 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: BlackArmorHira
Posted by: The EAKLE

The sniper is not useless because you know where he is, it is useless because you know where he is, what he can do, and you can stop it. Not many players can quickly jump out of cover, find and then kill a player before the BR watching them gets some hits. Yes, the sniper can ask his team for backup, but so can the BR. It nearly evens out, which is ridiculous because one is a power weapon and the other is a starting weapon.


The battle does not even out what so ever. If the sniper on the tower is being shot at all he needs to do is get behind the corner wall at the top of the tower. If the sniper's team isn't completely incompetent they would at least have someone on the stretch from rocket hall to green and that player/team mate could easily put a few shots on the opposing player on bridge .

From behind the wall the sniper has a clear view of rocket hall and sword stopping all flanks from those locations. Leaving his team to merely watch green if the player firing from bridge was planning a flank. The only resulting effect that player on bridge has on the sniper is his view and LoS of bridge, which what the BR is designed to do.

Also for players on the stretch from rocket hall to green, it would be easy to hold out there with normal ARs or any CQC weapon - not to mention the fact that there are 3 BRs on each side of Pit to begin with - The only way to deal with a mid range weapon is to use another mid-range weapon or higher on the hierarchy.

It is very impractical for one sole guy on a bridge firing at a power weapon to be able to force a full push, just from that one action.
Dont forget that the BR guy also has a team though. We could argue for a very, very long time on what could happen in any given scenario, but that would get us no where. Talking about just the sniper and the BR, the sniper is pinned. His best bet would be to find a BR and fight the other on a level playing field, or keep no scoping until someone is out of ammo.

  • 07.17.2009 12:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It's very hard for me agree with your argument when this type of scenario or a like situation on a multitude of maps happens all the time in every play list and never have I thought that to myself that my only chance at this is to "get a BR" or "keep no scoping" - there are so many different ways of dealing with one situation and that is merely two ways of literally hundreds.

Saying that the other player has a team as well, I believe is getting a bit out of hand and becoming to situational. From the direct effects of the player on bridge firing at the player on tower with sniper, he is distracting the player on tower and breaking his LoS on bridge. For the short time that sniper is hiding/relocating/ out of LoS his team could rush - and if successful that would be a very coordinated, well timed and deserved push.

The BR fills it place in the weapon hierarchy. Lessening or downgrading it will only off set the balance of such hierarchy, probably making the sniper more over powered. This is the way that Bungie has designed the game from the start of Halo:CE. From my time playing Halo from CE to 3 I've only ever used either the Pistol in CE or BR in 2 and 3 and any power weapons - these weapons are drastically different in their design and the way they function, but they are all mid-range weapons.

I too have experienced situations in Halo 3, and only Halo 3, where I feel that I'm being over powered by BRs, but I assure you that this has only occurred in completely open maps, exclusive to Halo 3.

  • 07.17.2009 1:01 PM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

NO GROUP INVITES!!!

The OP is pretty much right really. To be able to play Halo 3 and be good in it, you must use BR. You have no really options. Halo 3 is full of weapons... of which like only 2 are useful.
That's bad desing.

I don't want to have BR removed entirely from Halos. Its part of the Haloverse very much. I want it tweaked.

I think BR should be single fire like it was originally going to be, that way it'd be close to Halo CE pistol but not overpowered like M6D was.

PS, Dual Wielding, if its coming (i'd rather not have it... but support weapons are fine) should be more powerful, as you can't use any other stuff while dual wielding, in Halo 3 DW is pretty much useless.

  • 07.17.2009 1:04 PM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)

93% of statistics are lies. Formerly Xfire Grunt. Unfortunately, you can't change the WLID for your BNET account, so I had to create an alternate account. My other WLID was spam city (and it was my e-mail account too).

The reason we have Battle Rifle starts in matchmaking is because THEY ARE POPULAR! The Veto data shows that.

And no amount of arguing, whining, or crying is ever going to change that. I enjoy spawning with a multi-purpose weapon.

Modern Shooter games often let you CHOOSE your weapon . Face it buddy, but the weakest weapon was from the past. There are like 24 people playing the "old school" mode of Call of Duty 4 where it is like that. Halo 3 is actually the game where you get the weakest weapon upon spawn in the Xbox Live top 10. Call of Duty 4 lets you pick your spawning weapno.

If there was a game like you are talking about, I probably would not play. I like rifles and I like multi-purpose guns.

Also Halo:CE had the most powerful starting weapon so I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Battle Rifle is just used a lot, it isn't over powered. And because its apparently not being vetoed as much as anti-BR people whine about it remains in a sizeable portion of Halo 3 MM.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:08 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:06 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Ksychutrya
The reason we have Battle Rifle starts in matchmaking is because THEY ARE POPULAR! The Veto data shows that.

And no amount of arguing, whining, or crying is ever going to change that. I enjoy spawning with a multi-purpose weapon.

Modern Shooter games often let you CHOOSE your weapon . Face it buddy, but the weakest weapon was from the past. There are like 24 people playing the "old school" mode of Call of Duty 4 where it is like that. Halo 3 is actually the game where you get the weakest weapon upon spawn in the Xbox Live top 10.

If there was a game like you are talking about, I probably would play. I like rifles and I like multi-purpose guns.

Also Halo:CE had the most powerful starting weapon so I have no idea what you are talking about.
I acknowledged the power of the M6D in Halo: CE. However, the M6D was only a starting weapon in the "Pro" variants, and you started with "map default" in all other games. When you didn't start with the M6D, it played more like a power weapon, because there were not many on the map and they were very powerful. The BR is slightly weaker, but appears way more often, even as a starting weapon in Standard Slayer playlists.

  • 07.17.2009 1:10 PM PDT

93% of statistics are lies. Formerly Xfire Grunt. Unfortunately, you can't change the WLID for your BNET account, so I had to create an alternate account. My other WLID was spam city (and it was my e-mail account too).

Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: Ksychutrya
The reason we have Battle Rifle starts in matchmaking is because THEY ARE POPULAR! The Veto data shows that.

And no amount of arguing, whining, or crying is ever going to change that. I enjoy spawning with a multi-purpose weapon.

Modern Shooter games often let you CHOOSE your weapon . Face it buddy, but the weakest weapon was from the past. There are like 24 people playing the "old school" mode of Call of Duty 4 where it is like that. Halo 3 is actually the game where you get the weakest weapon upon spawn in the Xbox Live top 10.

If there was a game like you are talking about, I probably would play. I like rifles and I like multi-purpose guns.

Also Halo:CE had the most powerful starting weapon so I have no idea what you are talking about.
I acknowledged the power of the M6D in Halo: CE. However, the M6D was only a starting weapon in the "Pro" variants, and you started with "map default" in all other games. When you didn't start with the M6D, it played more like a power weapon, because there were not many on the map and they were very powerful. The BR is slightly weaker, but appears way more often, even as a starting weapon in Standard Slayer playlists.


Yeah and that is because it is popular. If it was getting vetoed it wouldn't be like that? Halo 3 online is kind of like a democracy and your vote is your veto.

Not to mention Modern Shooter design puts more powerful gunss in the hands of players. In COD 4 you can start with the best gun you want at any time. The pick up power guns is a bit outdated, but Halo 3 does a good job of incorporating it and making it a very fun game. The BR is a crucial element to this.

Also Halo:CE didn't have matchmaking.... so quite a few people who played it just made the settings what they wanted. Yeah there were less pistols, there were also half as many players (4) unless you did LAN/XBC.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:13 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:12 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Ksychutrya
Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: Ksychutrya
The reason we have Battle Rifle starts in matchmaking is because THEY ARE POPULAR! The Veto data shows that.

And no amount of arguing, whining, or crying is ever going to change that. I enjoy spawning with a multi-purpose weapon.

Modern Shooter games often let you CHOOSE your weapon . Face it buddy, but the weakest weapon was from the past. There are like 24 people playing the "old school" mode of Call of Duty 4 where it is like that. Halo 3 is actually the game where you get the weakest weapon upon spawn in the Xbox Live top 10.

If there was a game like you are talking about, I probably would play. I like rifles and I like multi-purpose guns.

Also Halo:CE had the most powerful starting weapon so I have no idea what you are talking about.
I acknowledged the power of the M6D in Halo: CE. However, the M6D was only a starting weapon in the "Pro" variants, and you started with "map default" in all other games. When you didn't start with the M6D, it played more like a power weapon, because there were not many on the map and they were very powerful. The BR is slightly weaker, but appears way more often, even as a starting weapon in Standard Slayer playlists.


Yeah and that is because it is popular. If it was getting vetoed it wouldn't be like that? Halo 3 online is kind of like a democracy and your vote is your veto.

Not to mention Modern Shooter design puts more powerful gunss in the hands of players. In COD 4 you can start with the best gun you want at any time. The pick up power guns is a bit outdated, but Halo 3 does a good job of incorporating it and making it a very fun game. The BR is a crucial element to this.

Also Halo:CE didn't have matchmaking.... so quite a few people who played it just made the settings what they wanted. Yeah there were less pistols, there were also half as many players (4) unless you did LAN/XBC.
Im mostly speaking about LANs. There are still 8-10 people at my house a couple times a year to play halo 1 and Halo 2.

  • 07.17.2009 1:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

NO GROUP INVITES!!!

Ksychutrya: But what about those who love Halo but don't like BR? IE prefer Carbine (which is not stupidly available when BR is allways) or CQB or simply don't like the feel of the weapon and how it behaves? Dual wielding loses most times against BR as BR has range advantage. This makes DW pretty much useless (other than against other CQB guys or when camping...) and so DW-fans cannot enjoy the game really. Or AR, it pretty much loses also against BR unless you ambush people. Not everyone likes camping, its quite boring.
Problem with BR is that it makes everything else pretty much useless, minus power weapons and those are usually only for special situations.
Heck support weapons are quite useless against BR too, depening on shooting skill of course.


[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:22 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:20 PM PDT

93% of statistics are lies. Formerly Xfire Grunt. Unfortunately, you can't change the WLID for your BNET account, so I had to create an alternate account. My other WLID was spam city (and it was my e-mail account too).

Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: Ksychutrya
Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: Ksychutrya
The reason we have Battle Rifle starts in matchmaking is because THEY ARE POPULAR! The Veto data shows that.

And no amount of arguing, whining, or crying is ever going to change that. I enjoy spawning with a multi-purpose weapon.

Modern Shooter games often let you CHOOSE your weapon . Face it buddy, but the weakest weapon was from the past. There are like 24 people playing the "old school" mode of Call of Duty 4 where it is like that. Halo 3 is actually the game where you get the weakest weapon upon spawn in the Xbox Live top 10.

If there was a game like you are talking about, I probably would play. I like rifles and I like multi-purpose guns.

Also Halo:CE had the most powerful starting weapon so I have no idea what you are talking about.
I acknowledged the power of the M6D in Halo: CE. However, the M6D was only a starting weapon in the "Pro" variants, and you started with "map default" in all other games. When you didn't start with the M6D, it played more like a power weapon, because there were not many on the map and they were very powerful. The BR is slightly weaker, but appears way more often, even as a starting weapon in Standard Slayer playlists.


Yeah and that is because it is popular. If it was getting vetoed it wouldn't be like that? Halo 3 online is kind of like a democracy and your vote is your veto.

Not to mention Modern Shooter design puts more powerful gunss in the hands of players. In COD 4 you can start with the best gun you want at any time. The pick up power guns is a bit outdated, but Halo 3 does a good job of incorporating it and making it a very fun game. The BR is a crucial element to this.

Also Halo:CE didn't have matchmaking.... so quite a few people who played it just made the settings what they wanted. Yeah there were less pistols, there were also half as many players (4) unless you did LAN/XBC.
Im mostly speaking about LANs. There are still 8-10 people at my house a couple times a year to play halo 1 and Halo 2.

All right, but you still haven't explained to me why Bungie should remove a gun whose starts are popular in Halo 3. If they weren't popular, they would be long gone from matchmaking, because of veto data. Bungie looks at our votes.

Also modern shooter development means that we spawn with more powerful guns these days. in many games you can spawn with what you think is the best gun in the game at any time. I may have 30% of my kills in halo 3 from the BR, but I have like 80% of my kills with teh m16 in COD 4, and its still quite popular despite having a sequal.

  • 07.17.2009 1:23 PM PDT

93% of statistics are lies. Formerly Xfire Grunt. Unfortunately, you can't change the WLID for your BNET account, so I had to create an alternate account. My other WLID was spam city (and it was my e-mail account too).

Posted by: Trap51b
Ksychutrya: But what about those who love Halo but don't like BR? IE prefer Carbine (which is not stupidly available when BR is allways) or CQB or simply don't like the feel of the weapon and how it behaves? Dual wielding loses most times against BR as BR has range advantage. This makes DW pretty much useless (other than against other CQB guys or when camping...) and so DW-fans cannot enjoy the game really. Or AR, it pretty much loses also against BR unless you ambush people. Not everyone likes camping, its quite boring.
Problem with BR is that it makes everything else pretty much useless, minus power weapons and those are usually only for special situations.
Heck support weapons are quite useless against BR too, depening on shooting skill of course.


The Carbine is not available because of design decisions introduced to prevent lag. Apparently not all the maps can suport 16 Carbines.

Dual Wielding is useless regardless of whether you remove the BR or not. The AR beats all Dual Wield guns in Halo 3 anyways. Dual Wielding was only useful back in Halo 2. Also if you are saying guns like the SMG are useless you are wrong. I use the BR, but i know the power of the SMG + AR. They always win in CQC if used correctly.

Not to mention you can use the Shotgun or Mauler exceedingly well in halo 3. Another thing is that if dual wielding was liked by the majority of players, it would be outside of Social Slayer. Bungie doesn't discriminate they probably look mainly at the veto data. If Team Duals is getting vetoed, unfortunately other people dont' like that play style. So unfortunataly you are going to have to deal with it because MM caters to the widest variety of players and has to take into account what is popular.

  • 07.17.2009 1:27 PM PDT