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.)

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.


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.
Just because it's popular it isnt automatically good or balanced. The CE pistol was very popular, and it was toned down to the H2 Magnum. A new mid range weapon was added, and it was "balanced". It is not much weaker then the M6D and is still used in a very similar way, but is more common. I say tone it down, or replace it.

Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with CoD. Just because other popular games do it Halo doesnt have to do it.

  • 07.17.2009 1:29 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

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.
Just because it's popular it isnt automatically good or balanced. The CE pistol was very popular, and it was toned down to the H2 Magnum. A new mid range weapon was added, and it was "balanced". It is not much weaker then the M6D and is still used in a very similar way, but is more common. I say tone it down, or replace it.

Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with CoD. Just because other popular games do it Halo doesnt have to do it.


No Call of Duty applies. It demonstrates that people don't like to be handicapped when they spawn. I am talking about MODERN SHOOTER design.

The Halo:CE deal is different. You couldn't avoid it so it was popular. Bungie could remove the BR from Halo 3 entirely. Would they? Nope. They could remove BR starts. Would they? No, because they aren't vetoed more then AR starts, which demonstrates people like to have a flexible starting gun.

What you are basically advocating is Doom Style shooter design. If you check out the Xbox live top ten, those games aren't popular any more. Clearly there are other reasons, but I think people like to have a decent starting weapons. This is demonstrated from the popularity of games that let you pick your starting gun. And the lack of popularity of games that don't. In fact, I think no BR would radically alter Halo game play and result in a game that isn't really Halo. Halo has never exited without a powerful mid-range gun.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:34 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

NO GROUP INVITES!!!

Posted by: Ksychutrya
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.

Yes i know DW is not popular. I don't like it much either... I know weapons like SMG work in CQB if used correctly... problem is, BR can still outgun them. Even if BR user is the reactive person.

Personally, i don't like Mauler and shotgun. One shot weapons at melee range are not my style, i prefer close quarters combat rather (10-20 meters?) than melee (~5meters)
Good guns... but lack style :/ Yeah i know, this is my opinion. And minority.

Maybe Bungie should make a lot of nearly identical weapons for those who like different style? Carbine and BR are only choices for all arounders in Halo 3. Me, and probably many others too would like an automatic weapon which can kill at medium range (AR supposedly can do this... but only in campaign really, MP is so much faster). Or human single shot weapon, or covenant burst firing weapon.

Oh and OP could probably chance the thread's title, "Remove BR" is a call for heated flame war more like. Nor is it really descriptive.No offence.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:42 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:40 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.


What you are basically advocating is Doom Style shooter design. If you check out the Xbox live top ten, those games aren't popular any more. Clearly there are other reasons, but I think people like to have a decent starting weapons. This is demonstrated from the popularity of games that let you pick your starting gun. And the lack of popularity of games that don't. In fact, I think no BR would radically alter Halo game play and result in a game that isn't really Halo. Halo has never exited without a powerful mid-range gun.
Im sure people wouldnt mind a bit of variety. You know that all the "little kids" are going to by Halo just because it's Halo. They wouldn't say "theres no BR? Im done with this!" They take up whatever weapon was deemed "pro" and use it. Many of the people (like me) who play for fun wont care either. It's a new gun (or a weaker BR). Big deal. There would still be an effective mid range weapon so Halo would not be too much different. If it plays close to Halo 3, many people will love it.

Halo 3 is drastically different than Combat Evolved. Falling damage was removed, weapons have changed, vehicles are no longer indestructible, and we have matchmaking. They game is so much different, yet it was the top XBL game for a very, very long time. Are you telling me enough people to hurt the Franchise will put down Halo because the BR is weaker? I dont believe that.

  • 07.17.2009 1:46 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.


Oh and OP could probably chance the thread's title, "Remove BR" is a call for heated flame war more like. Nor is it really descriptive.No offence.
Good idea. Done.

  • 07.17.2009 1:48 PM PDT
Subject: Alter/Replace the BR in 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).

Posted by: The EAKLE

What you are basically advocating is Doom Style shooter design. If you check out the Xbox live top ten, those games aren't popular any more. Clearly there are other reasons, but I think people like to have a decent starting weapons. This is demonstrated from the popularity of games that let you pick your starting gun. And the lack of popularity of games that don't. In fact, I think no BR would radically alter Halo game play and result in a game that isn't really Halo. Halo has never exited without a powerful mid-range gun.
Im sure people wouldnt mind a bit of variety. You know that all the "little kids" are going to by Halo just because it's Halo. They wouldn't say "theres no BR? Im done with this!" They take up whatever weapon was deemed "pro" and use it. Many of the people (like me) who play for fun wont care either. It's a new gun (or a weaker BR). Big deal. There would still be an effective mid range weapon so Halo would not be too much different. If it plays close to Halo 3, many people will love it.

Halo 3 is drastically different than Combat Evolved. Falling damage was removed, weapons have changed, vehicles are no longer indestructible, and we have matchmaking. They game is so much different, yet it was the top XBL game for a very, very long time. Are you telling me enough people to hurt the Franchise will put down Halo because the BR is weaker? I dont believe that.


No I'm not. I'm just saying all the popular modern games let you have multi-purpose weapons, and most let you pick your gun. Also I don't get why variety is so great. IMO, all that matters is the game is fun. But I don't think you really thought over this. Have you ever played Halo 2: Version 1.0? I sincerely doubt you have. Because in Halo 2 1.0 the BR was nerfed, and garbage. In fact the SMG was the most powerful weapon in the game when it was dual wielded (aside from the Rocket Launcher and the Sniper Rifle).

The BR could have been a childs toy because Dual SMGS (or SMG + Pistol) would rip right through anybody using a Battle Rifle.

Guess why you don't remember Halo 2 version 1? Well because it was patched Hell'uva fast because Bungie realized over powered CQC/Dual Wields were a bad idea and it was a good idea to have a powerful mid-range gun.



[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:51 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:49 PM PDT

You sir...win I like the Original Halo but the console doesn't have online multiplayer :/
I wish they would make a playlist with only Halo 1 weapons no H2 or H3 ones

[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:54 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:52 PM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)

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: 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?"


Bullet magnetism is a form of aim assist. I'd assum you noticed one form of aim assist, the reticule slowing down as it crosses an opponent that is within range to turn it red. Aim assist is put into console shooters because joysticks alone are not very accurate.

The other type of aim assist is bullet magnetism. This is wear after the bullet is shot it will physically curve while in the air and hit the opposing player rather than going straight and say hitting the wall next to the enemy.

  • 07.17.2009 1:54 PM PDT
Subject: Alter/Replace the BR in Halo: Reach Update-7/16/09 New weapons added
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

NO GROUP INVITES!!!

Posted by: Ksychutrya

No I'm not. I'm just saying all the popular modern games let you have multi-purpose weapons, and most let you pick your gun. Also I don't get why variety is so great. IMO, all that matters is the game is fun. But I don't think you really thought over this. Have you ever played Halo 2: Version 1.0? I sincerely doubt you have. Because in Halo 2 1.0 the BR was nerfed, and garbage. In fact the SMG was the most powerful weapon in the game when it was dual wielded (aside from the Rocket Launcher and the Sniper Rifle).

The BR could have been a childs toy because Dual SMGS (or SMG + Pistol) would rip right through anybody using a Battle Rifle.

Guess why you don't remember Halo 2 version 1? Well because it was patched Hell'uva fast because Bungie realized over powered CQC/Dual Wields were a bad idea and it was a good idea to have a powerful mid-range gun.


Ahh i remember this... i didn't have Live back then but we played 3 person slayer on split screen. Before i bought the Map Pack disc (which had the patch), SMG+PR was a ridiculous combo. Only that no one was so good that BR wouldn't work well too. When i installed the maps and the patch, the balance was better... until my friend started usign BR. He owned us 90% time... because he's so boring he won't do anything else than fire BR (and sniper) :/
The patch made BR a bit too powerfull really. You didn't need anything else... BR in Halo 3 is more balanced but the situation is same as in Halo 2 really, BR is only needed thing. Variety
be gone... :(

PS, wasn't Bullet Magnetism very big in Halo 2? In Halo 3 it feels almost non-existant. Auto-aim on the other hand ruins my carefully aimed laser shots whole time :/

[Edited on 07.17.2009 1:56 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 1:55 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

What you are basically advocating is Doom Style shooter design. If you check out the Xbox live top ten, those games aren't popular any more. Clearly there are other reasons, but I think people like to have a decent starting weapons. This is demonstrated from the popularity of games that let you pick your starting gun. And the lack of popularity of games that don't. In fact, I think no BR would radically alter Halo game play and result in a game that isn't really Halo. Halo has never exited without a powerful mid-range gun.
Im sure people wouldnt mind a bit of variety. You know that all the "little kids" are going to by Halo just because it's Halo. They wouldn't say "theres no BR? Im done with this!" They take up whatever weapon was deemed "pro" and use it. Many of the people (like me) who play for fun wont care either. It's a new gun (or a weaker BR). Big deal. There would still be an effective mid range weapon so Halo would not be too much different. If it plays close to Halo 3, many people will love it.

Halo 3 is drastically different than Combat Evolved. Falling damage was removed, weapons have changed, vehicles are no longer indestructible, and we have matchmaking. They game is so much different, yet it was the top XBL game for a very, very long time. Are you telling me enough people to hurt the Franchise will put down Halo because the BR is weaker? I dont believe that.


No I'm not. I'm just saying all the popular modern games let you have multi-purpose weapons, and most let you pick your gun. Also I don't get why variety is so great. IMO, all that matters is the game is fun. But I don't think you really thought over this. Have you ever played Halo 2: Version 1.0? I sincerely doubt you have. Because in Halo 2 1.0 the BR was nerfed, and garbage. In fact the SMG was the most powerful weapon in the game when it was dual wielded (aside from the Rocket Launcher and the Sniper Rifle).

The BR could have been a childs toy because Dual SMGS (or SMG + Pistol) would rip right through anybody using a Battle Rifle.

Guess why you don't remember Halo 2 version 1? Well because it was patched Hell'uva fast because Bungie realized over powered CQC/Dual Wields were a bad idea and it was a good idea to have a powerful mid-range gun.

Actually, i believe i've only played one game on anything but 1.0. I got Halo 2 about the time it came out, but i didnt have XBL until last year. I do remember the SMG being the main weapon. A slight clip size reduction and a little more spread at extreme ranges would not make Reach like Halo 2 1.0. It would play more like Halo 3, if BRs were a little less powerful.

This is the last time i am going to say this. Just because other games start you with versatile weapons, Halo doesnt. Sure, all teh popular games are doing it, but Halo is it's own game. It haas thousands of followers who will play no matter what.

  • 07.17.2009 1:56 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).

Posted by: Trap51b
Yes i know DW is not popular. I don't like it much either... I know weapons like SMG work in CQB if used correctly... problem is, BR can still outgun them. Even if BR user is the reactive person.

Personally, i don't like Mauler and shotgun. One shot weapons at melee range are not my style, i prefer close quarters combat rather (10-20 meters?) than melee (~5meters)
Good guns... but lack style :/ Yeah i know, this is my opinion. And minority.

Maybe Bungie should make a lot of nearly identical weapons for those who like different style? Carbine and BR are only choices for all arounders in Halo 3. Me, and probably many others too would like an automatic weapon which can kill at medium range (AR supposedly can do this... but only in campaign really, MP is so much faster). Or human single shot weapon, or covenant burst firing weapon.

Oh and OP could probably chance the thread's title, "Remove BR" is a call for heated flame war more like. Nor is it really descriptive.No offence.

Well the SMG is useful in certain situations and will outgun a BR here (for example the lifts on the pit).

Well you are right Halo 3 only has two mid-range guns which is one reason why people think they are over powered (in fact there is really only one mid-range gun in Halo 3, the BR). Considering most kills/battles in Halo 3 are at BR range, thats a bit problematic. So I would be down with having more. I would rather see them as powerful as the Halo 3 BR rather then being nerfed though. An automatic gun would have to kill as fast as a 5SK BR though, because it would be easier to get kills.

  • 07.17.2009 1:58 PM PDT
Subject: Alter/Replace the BR in 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).

Posted by: The EAKLE
Actually, i believe i've only played one game on anything but 1.0. I got Halo 2 about the time it came out, but i didnt have XBL until last year. I do remember the SMG being the main weapon. A slight clip size reduction and a little more spread at extreme ranges would not make Reach like Halo 2 1.0. It would play more like Halo 3, if BRs were a little less powerful.

This is the last time i am going to say this. Just because other games start you with versatile weapons, Halo doesnt. Sure, all teh popular games are doing it, but Halo is it's own game. It haas thousands of followers who will play no matter what.


No that is wrong. If Halo:Reach was terribly imbalanced and had a POS multi-player a lot less people would play it and buy it. I am guessing you reject popular, but the Money people at Microsoft probably don't. Anyways in my opinion if somsething is popular it is generally a good idea for a video game because then the most people enjoy it. Sure you can have other ideas, but Halo 3 already does that. Its a bad idea to spawn people with a nerfed BR. It makes the game less fun. You are basically asking for devolution. If you had an innovative idea, your post would work. But you are asking for something that is flat out outdated .

  • 07.17.2009 2:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

NO GROUP INVITES!!!

Maybe Reach should completly overhaul the multiplayer? Halo 2 and 3 did not evolve greatly from Halo CE in reality (Halo 2 was quite a big step though). New stuff was added but the basics are same.

I mean, even popular stuff loses its popularity if it is same stuff for years... people get bored at some point. Maybe when Halo Reach comes, it's time Halo needs an overhaul? How long we've been playing Halo 2 and 3? 7 years? Halo 3 is no longer the top game in Live IIRC. And it's not really rising (not necessarily going down either), newer competitors make sure of that.

BR and other weapon tweaks wouldn't change the game radically... keeping it same old with new graphichs... how long would that keep people interested?

[Edited on 07.17.2009 2:11 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 2:10 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: Trap51b
Maybe Reach should completly overhaul the multiplayer? Halo 2 and 3 did not evolve greatly from Halo CE in reality (Halo 2 was quite a big step though). New stuff was added but the basics are same.

I mean, even popular stuff loses its popularity if it is same stuff for years... people get bored at some point. Maybe when Halo Reach comes, it's time Halo needs an overhaul? How long we've been playing Halo 2 and 3? 7 years? Halo 3 is no longer the top game in Live IIRC. And it's not really rising (not necessarily going down either), newer competitors make sure of that.


Halo 2 was the best online multi-player on consoles. The original Xbox also suffered from a lack of games. That is no longer the case as much. Because of this other games are going to be popular on Xbox 360, now that the Halo 2 technology has been expanded to most of Xbox Live.

I really don't think you need to radically overturn gameplay. Yeah you should evolve it, but what the OP wants is to devolve it back to Quake/DOOM style game play where you have bad spawn guns, no true rifles and power weapons around the maps. The way I see it, why upset a formula that works? Just evolve it and make it better, don't reinvent the wheel.

Halo:Reach is a sequal/prequel. If people want to radically overturn the gameplay, wait for the 3rd Bungie project (I believe Bungie stated they were working on 3 projects, we know of two now). So if its a new IP that would mean new gameplay.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 2:15 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 2:13 PM PDT

Let's keep the AR, change the BR, and that will be that.

  • 07.17.2009 2:14 PM PDT

ok i read the op and you proberbly dont yous the br that mutch becuse if you did, you would know the br takes up a full round of ammo for the average player per kill and so lowering damage would make you need more ammo not less and lastly i agree with the wider spread at range.

oh and with may statment the br takes a full round of ammo to kill that was for the average player that will miss a few of the shots witch can be really punershing (i know it can kill it with a few shots in the hands of a decent player and thats why its called a pro wepon)


so stop complaining and relise the br gets powned at normal range by spikers and most wepons if the players that are fighting the br dont suck


i can prove this becuse i normaly use the br and do get beaten by GOOD players, not the noobs that complain

  • 07.17.2009 2:23 PM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)

Some people never see the light till It shines though bullet holes.

Vote for the most underated weapon

group to talk about halo reach with no spam

OP you have a lot of failed logic in your post.

Right off the bat you accuse the BR of promoting camping?!?!?! It does quite the opposite. First the Br allows its holder to move around the map and contest long range weapons. The Ar on the other hand has very limited range which in turns gives very little options to the player which results in a player having limited map movement which in turn gives us camping.

Also the range on the AR is still greater than a sword or shotgun so people will still camp with these weapons whether or not you are using a BR. So their goes another one of your points. You also say the br renders AR's and dual wields useless well what do you think POWER weapons do. Now instead of having a chance to contest the laser or sniper (with a br) your stuck with an AR and no options.

You also make a point that Halo Ce was an amazing game and no one complained about not being able to kill the flag carrier at a distance. The thing is if you were playing Halo Ce it wasnt on live against people you didnt know it was with friends that you knew. So no matter how bad it gets you were still playing with friends. You also say the pistol wasnt a factor in Halo Ce but there are tons of films of lans with people using the pistol as the starting weapon. Halo Ce was a fantastic game because of mostly the pistol and the fact people couldnt complain about how bad xbl was.

Your next point is the fact that the Br became the main weapon because of no AR. Sorry to burst your bubble but the pistol was much more popular than the AR. How many people do you honestly hear say "please bungie give me the Halo CE AR". Honestly.

Now I am quoting you because this is full of win.

With Halo 2 came BR's introduction to MLG. Without the Assault Rifle, the only main weapon to have was the BR, so it became MLG's main weapon. Halo 2 quickly became incredibly popular, and the BR came with it.

And I quote "without the AR" "main weapon to have was the BR" "Halo 2 quickly became incredibly popular". I wonder why. Most people like having a weapon that can be reliable. The Ar is a shoot and pray gun meaning with the spread of the bullets which are much more random than the br your hoping that more of your bullets will count instead of your oppenents. At least with the br and the bursts you have a better chance of knowing if you will get the kill.

'The truth is it is much harder aiming semiautomatic weapons than it is automatic weapons.
Why? Because if you miss with a semiautomatic weapon not only are you a shot down but there is a slight delay as to when you can shoot back. With an automatic weapon if you miss you may miss one bullet out of 20 instead of one out of 4. Look at the ratio 1/20 1/4. There is much less error missing a bullet out of 20 shots to kill a target than there is for misiing one out of 4. (5% to 25%) The percetage wouldnt matter accept for the delay of time when you can shoot back with automatics you may immediatly shoot back and still recover.

So semiautomatics reward better aim while automatics provide a security blanket in case you miss some bullets.

The point above is why mlg and most other players like the br because if your aim is better you dont die. Most people dont like randomness in their lives so why is it such a surprise that people dont want randomness in Halo.

You say that the BR has destroyed the game. You fail to understand that the AR has destroyed dual wielding. Seeing how I spawn with an AR and it is just as good as a DW in almost every situation Dual wielding has become very hard to be used effectively in Halo 3. So In Ar start gametypes without the "evil" Br you never see people dual wield anyway and if they do they almost certaintly go negaitive.

Oh for people that want to just screw around. The Br hasnt destroyed that you can easily go start a custom and do whatever you want. Obviously you spent too much time making this thread cause your logic is going way down hill.

And finally with your last point. Now your getting a long range weapon that takes longer to kill people. It seems to me that you want to slow down halo till we all feel like were playing mass effect and frozen in time. If anything the game needs to be sped up.

Oh props to the first post for telling it how it is.

/facepalm
/ur reasoning





  • 07.17.2009 2:27 PM PDT

To the above poster: I believe that Dual wielding should have a trade off. You should give up throwing grenades and gain extra damage. This is why they should make dual wielding do more damage.

However, I do not believe everyone should have a BR. On big maps (such as Valhalla) there are about 4 BR spawns on each side, that gives half the team a BR. Giving everyone a BR destroys variety. Ever played Big Team Battle? All anyone uses is the BR and the Sniper.

  • 07.17.2009 2:34 PM PDT
Subject: Alter/Replace the BR in Halo: Reach Update-7/16/09 New weapons added

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!!

This is what I don't get, THE Eakle. You make out the H3 BR to be more effective than most of the close-ranged weapons. I would agree with that only if you are including Grenades, because right now there are really only 3 weapons I can think of that would consistently lose to a decent BRer: Plasma Rifle, Plasma Pistol, and Spiker (when not dualed with M6G or SMG). But, those weapons are mainly used for Melees, which then they would destroy a BR at that range.

Also, the BR does not have sufficient enough range to kill a Sniper; it really can only ping the Sniper unless you get closer. I, personally, do not fear a BR user at long range, because of that reason.

So, how exactly is the BR overpowered? It has a purpose, and that is mid-range and Sniper support. All the other weapons also have a purpose; the close-ranged weapons are for close-range.

What I am getting at is that close-ranged weapons will naturally be used less because they can only be used within a limited range, therefore forcing people into CQC in order to use those weapons.

You can't force people to use weapons they don't want to, just for the sake of "variety", or whatever other reason you want lesser effective mid-ranged weapons. But, as it is right now, you CAN use the other weapons if you want to. I drop my AR everytime I see a Plasma Rifle or Plasma Pistol, and those are two weapons that people tend to stay away from. The SMG is too close to the same as the AR, which is why people will tend to not use that weapon; nerfing the BR will not change that.

Depending on the map size, I already use the Magnum over the BR and with successful results. So what is your problem with this game's balance? I also see the BR being able to fight every weapon as a good thing. Designing the game where it is like Rock, Paper, Scissors would only create dull and repetitive gameplay.

In conclusion, if the BR and/or Carbine or whatever takes their place is toned down, I won't consider this game. IMO, those weapons need more range. But, if people are going to whine about getting killed from a distance then I can live with its current accuracy and power. I actually think if the ranged weapons get any worse, Bungie will lose a portion of their fans; I, personally, will just play any of the other shooters, because they all have good range with their weapons where I can actually fight when I see someone.

I still don't get why you think we should tone down the ranged weapons in order to create more balance, instead of toning up some of the close-ranged weapons. But, whatever.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 2:42 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 2:39 PM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)

Some people never see the light till It shines though bullet holes.

Vote for the most underated weapon

group to talk about halo reach with no spam

Posted by: Lexxier
To the above poster: I believe that Dual wielding should have a trade off. You should give up throwing grenades and gain extra damage. This is why they should make dual wielding do more damage.

However, I do not believe everyone should have a BR. On big maps (such as Valhalla) there are about 4 BR spawns on each side, that gives half the team a BR. Giving everyone a BR destroys variety. Ever played Big Team Battle? All anyone uses is the BR and the Sniper.


I agree on the DW part.

On your second part I believe in HALO 3 that people should all have a BR. Why because any other weapon would not allow the team to function as one.

Btw you gave me an idea.

  • 07.17.2009 2:40 PM PDT
Subject: Alter/Replace the BR in Halo: Reach Update-7/16/09 New weapons added

Posted by: cpt falcon911
Posted by: Lexxier
To the above poster: I believe that Dual wielding should have a trade off. You should give up throwing grenades and gain extra damage. This is why they should make dual wielding do more damage.

However, I do not believe everyone should have a BR. On big maps (such as Valhalla) there are about 4 BR spawns on each side, that gives half the team a BR. Giving everyone a BR destroys variety. Ever played Big Team Battle? All anyone uses is the BR and the Sniper.


I agree on the DW part.

On your second part I believe in HALO 3 that people should all have a BR. Why because any other weapon would not allow the team to function as one.

Btw you gave me an idea.


What's your idea?

And the BR can counter the sniper, rockets, laser and most of the power weapons at medium range. This pretty much eliminates the idea of controlling parts of the map to control the power weapons.

There should be BR's, yes, but not everyone should have one.

[Edited on 07.17.2009 2:45 PM PDT]

  • 07.17.2009 2:41 PM PDT
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach. (Update-7/16/09 : New weapons added.)

Posted by: Lexxier
To the above poster: I believe that Dual wielding should have a trade off. You should give up throwing grenades and gain extra damage. This is why they should make dual wielding do more damage.

When you dual wield, the following happens:
>Damage Drops by 25%
>But since both guns are firing at 75% damage output, it roughly equals out to 150% of the normal damage that one would normally get.
>Bullets spread out much more, making it harder for the guns to be efficient
>You can't use grenades.
>Meleeing causing you to drop your other weapon, forcing you to pick it up before continuing
>Hard to swap to a secondary
>Reload times increase.

In effect it allows you to do much more damage at a cost to nearly everything else.

  • 07.17.2009 2:42 PM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Lexxier
To the above poster: I believe that Dual wielding should have a trade off. You should give up throwing grenades and gain extra damage. This is why they should make dual wielding do more damage.

When you dual wield, the following happens:
>Damage Drops by 25%
>But since both guns are firing at 75% damage output, it roughly equals out to 150% of the normal damage that one would normally get.
>Bullets spread out much more, making it harder for the guns to be efficient
>You can't use grenades.
>Meleeing causing you to drop your other weapon, forcing you to pick it up before continuing
>Hard to swap to a secondary
>Reload times increase.

In effect it allows you to do much more damage at a cost to nearly everything else.



Yes, the bullets do spread, DW is meant for CQB.

I think they should make an animation in Halo: Reach where your character keeps one weapon and hits the enemy in the face with the other

This is why Bungie should decrease the reloading time.

  • 07.17.2009 2:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

NO GROUP INVITES!!!

Posted by: cpt falcon911
Posted by: Lexxier
To the above poster: I believe that Dual wielding should have a trade off. You should give up throwing grenades and gain extra damage. This is why they should make dual wielding do more damage.

However, I do not believe everyone should have a BR. On big maps (such as Valhalla) there are about 4 BR spawns on each side, that gives half the team a BR. Giving everyone a BR destroys variety. Ever played Big Team Battle? All anyone uses is the BR and the Sniper.


I agree on the DW part.

On your second part I believe in HALO 3 that people should all have a BR. Why because any other weapon would not allow the team to function as one.

Btw you gave me an idea.

Ever heard of moving in groups with people doing a certain task? IMO it seems that if everyone has BR, everyone goes around solo. Almost every time when the game starts with BRs, people rush to Sniper and throw nades at each other. Everytime i see AR starts, some people rush to power weapons, some to BRs. More even spread of people... forces more specialized play style. True, many don't get what they want but then that's universal thing. Not that this leads to good playing allways... neither really seems working.
Of course if people play in parties its different... but MOST people DON'T play in parties, for variety of reason.

  • 07.17.2009 2:50 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Halo CE > Halo 3 > Halo 2

Fix the Halo 3 BR spread, plz.

If they were to weaken the power of the mid range gun and make it even more inaccurate, I would not buy this game. The guns already take slow enough to kill people, causing the games awesome pace from Halo CE to be dead in Halo 3. All the guns need to be powered up. The BR should be single shot, 3 shot kill and have better range and faster rate of fire, like the Halo CE pistol. The Rockets need to be like mini-nukes again. The sniper needs to shoot faster again. The SMG needs to kill very fast at close range, like the Halo CE AR. The AR needs to do well at close-medium range by being powered up, limit spread and add headshot capabilities. The Plasma weapons need a freeze effect again. The shotgun needs to have a bit more range. The problem isn't the BR is overpowered, considering there's plenty of guns that beat in all situations, it's that all the guns are far too weak and ruin the pacing of the game.

  • 07.17.2009 2:54 PM PDT