Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach
  • Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach
Subject: Remove the BR from Halo: Reach

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

Posted by: The EAKLE
Yes, that's my point. BRs are the perfect weapon in most scenarios. Why use anything else? Two of your three solutions included BRs, supporting my argument that BRs are only balanced by more BRs. There is no point for ARs, Spikers, pistols, or SMGs if you cant kill the guy with the BR.
There is no problem with the BR, the ARs, Spikers, Pistols, etc. are just poorly designed weapons since they are not versatile. In Halo 1, the PR and PP were actually versatile and powerful weapons; you could use them at midrange and kill a Pistol (the old "BR") with them Not so in Halo 3, thanks to dual wielding, they had to become half-guns. The better solution would be to make everythin as versatile as the BR, except with different specialities (ex. BR best at midrange but can operate at close and long, AR should be best at close range but can operate at mid and long).

AS for the spawn camp thing, i was taking that form the many "BR ONLY STARTS NOW!!!" threads in Optimatch. Out of nearly all of them i have seen, everyone has used the argument "If i grab a BR, then die, i have no BRs and i get spawn killed by the other team's BRs!" There are several reasons why that is a bad argument, but i took it because it shows BR lovers the flaw with the BR they already know. Their solution? "MORE BRS!"The problem with AR starts is you can't fight against a BR wielder (or a sniper, laser, vehicle, etc.). With BR starts, you have a chance to fight back against people with power weapons and vehicles camping your base. Not so with ARs. You need to wait for the BR to spawn, hope to get to it before you get taken out by a sniper, laser, warthog, or banshee, and then from there, you can't use team-firing to take anyone out since you'd be the only one with a BR.

  • 07.15.2009 1:02 PM PDT

I'm a lead farmer, mother lover!

I'm not going to quote Hylebos, but I agree strongly with everything said.

  • 07.15.2009 1:07 PM PDT

In the days of old, there were legends of a land long lost to time. This land was known as Ranna'Mor. Ranna'Mor was said to contain in its borders 7 warriors. These warriors had once unleashed a veritable hell upon the ancient world, until they were locked away. My name is Toriad, and I am one of those warriors. Our return is approaching. Do not run away, do not cower in fear; take solace in your final days, for that is all we can do. -Legend of Ranna'Mor

Posted by: The EAKLE
BRs are a major flaw in Halo 3's design. It is a starting weapon that literally anyone can kill with from pretty far distances. Because of it's range and accuracy, it makes all dual wieldable weapons and ARs almost entirely useless. Because it out ranges power weapons like swords and shotguns, the only effective way to use them is camp. Thus, the BR promotes camping.

People claim that teh BR is a needed weapon. That is flat out wrong. Halo: Combat Evolved was a fantastic game and it had no BR. It is often said that flag games become annoying with ARs because you cant kill the carrier from a distance, but none of these claims were made in Halo Combat Evolved because we didnt know of an unbalanced starting weapon, besides the pistol. We did just fine with our ARs up until Halo 2.

In Halo 2, the AR was removed for the SMG, and the Battle Rifle was added. Because the SMGs were dual wieldable and functioned different from an AR, it seemed to be an entire different weapon instead of a new Assault Rifle. With the AR out of the way the BR had a chance at being the new main weapon. It did a decent job because we could not see it's devastating onslaught of other weapons compared to the AR functioning well with them.

With Halo 2 came Halo'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.

Now in Halo 3 MLG has a giant fanbase, and many believe the BR to be the "PRO" weapon over the Asault Rifle, when the truth is the AR never had a chance to shine. The AR returned from Halo CE, but with less ammo. The BR came back with a slight spread. The now weakened AR was slaughtered by the BR in almost every battle, leading people to believe that the AR was bad, instead of the truth that the BR is greatly overpowered. The BR is a favorite of many players because they live under the stereotype that it means they are "good" or "pro", when really it is an easy way to rack up kills.

From looking at nearly anyone's service record you can see the BR as the Tool of Destruction. Why is this? Because if anyone comes up with a close range weapon they are killed before they get the chance to fight. Everyone get's kills with the Bettle Rifle because they can. Some great AR user can try to attack, but will get mowed down by a BR "noob" in almost any situation. The only way to counter the BR is to get close. But the BR is still powerful at that range. Three quick bursts then a melee put's the opposing player down. Even though the AR is meant for close range it often ends up "trading" with the BR. Because of this the only logical thing to do is get a more powerful weapon than the BR.

Your weapon choices are now Rocket, Sniper, Sword or Shotgun. People claim Rocket's are for noobs because anyone can kill with them and shotguns and swords are for noobs because of camping. The truth is that players turn to these weapons because the BR practically forces them to. Basically, if you are not good with a BR or sniper you are killed a lot or considered a noob.

Obviously, the BR is the root of all Halo's evil. I have shown you already that it promotes camping and "noob" weapons, but that's not all. When players are not good at the game what do they do? They dont care about winning and jut play for fun. How can you play for fun if a starting weapon dominates everything else? Just screw around. Drive off cliffs, speed around on a mongoose, try to get kills with a pistol, you name it. Any time someone is not trying to play Halo the "right" way, they are a by product of the BR. Any time you see someone killed repeatedly and hae an awful K/D ratio, think to yourself "What weapon was used to kill them so many times?" The BR is likely the answer.

So, the BR has reduced Halo to Brs, snipers, and "noobs." Is that a Halo we want to play? I dont think so. But what can fix this terrible world the BR has made? The answer seems obvious. The AR. It is the perfect starting weapon. It get's the job done without being the main weapon of the game. By scrapping both the BR and the MA5C (Our current Assault Rifle), then bringing back the MA5B (CE's Assault Rifle) Halo would be restored to it's former glory.

But we need a new mid-long range weapon, right? I mean, the BR did have a purpose. . .

Wrong. The BR's range was one of the main reasons it destroyed our beloved game. Another mid-long range weapon would likey also ruin it. To fill the gap left in all the "pro" players' hearts, we do need a new mid range balanced weapon. A new and improved pistol will do just fine.

Take the Halo 3 pistol and slightly improve it. "But that pistol is bad!" Not true. The weapon is good if you know how to use it. Get in range, aim for the head, and fire while strafing away from the enemy's fire. Sounds a lot like a BR right? The only difference is that the pistol did not ruin Halo. The only issue with the pistol is that it's magazine does not hold enough ammo for multiple kills. By increasing the pistols clip size and adding a 1.5X scope, we wouls have a great new mid ranged weapon.

With our MA5Bs and new pistols set to starting weapons, Halo would return to the once great game it was meant to be.
Okay, I'm sorry, but you sound like an individual that get's BRed in every game he/she plays because you just don't know or don't want to adjust to it.

I use both the BR, the AR, and SMGs to take down opponent with BRs (with a few well placed grenades). It's a simple matter of closing the distance (the BR is not so useful up close).

So, the BR needs to and (probably) will stay for Reach.

  • 07.15.2009 1:08 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Heroic Member

www.eevince.com
www.polark.deviantart.com

____________________________

They thought they were funny; however, they didn't know they were talking to a peanut farmer from Georgia who knows the value of a peanut.

halo wouldn't feel like halo without the br now.

  • 07.15.2009 1:10 PM PDT

The Ghosts of Onyx - Retired Staff

Posted by: JurtEJ
The books have nerfed their own canon too by principle of exclusion. What I mean here is that Fall of Reach should have (technically) included all of the weapons, prototypes, and what have you considering it was such a heavily armed military facility. Therein, Hornets, Mongoose, and other vehicles (such as those in Halo Wars [I know, non-Bungie]) should have been apparent.

Apparently you need to go read the book again. Reach was not an armory, it was not a weapons research facility, it was not an outfitting station. Reach was a massive shipyard. The purpose of Reach was to construct Naval vessels. The planet itself was a training area for troops. Sure, they would have had Hornets, Mongooses, Hogs, Scorpions, even the other vehicles from Halo Wars if you want to get technical. The only explaination as to why those vehicles were not in Halo CE is that the Pillar of Autumn was not fully stocked and refitted, and there were massive losses to the cargo they already had. Reach would not hold a huge stock of prototype weapons. There would be some, that is for sure. But they would not have enough to arm more than a few troops.

Now on that principle, it could be included in one of the later missions as an Easter Egg weapon, and then I guess that would make it reasonable to include it in Multiplayer, but it needs to be balanced. They could easily explain ANY change to the BR by saying it is the BR prototype, not the BR.

Posted by: JurtEJ
There's no reason BRs couldn't be included based on this principle. They've f'ed a bit with their canon before.

Can you give me any examples of this?


Posted by: JurtEJ
As for the ACTUAL argument... BRs are a perfect weapon and perhaps they are a LITTLE overpowered but honestly a better player will be able to overcome on three accounts.

1) Being able to get to a BR spawn first
2) Getting to a DIFFERENT BR spawn
3) Being generally better with different weapons (such as grenades or other such forces)

Also really, how many BR spawn campers have you seen unless you're out-manned 4:1, and you're virtually ALLOWING yourself to be BR camped?

1) Should there be a weapon so powerful that people feel obligated to get to if first, and yet that weapon can be found in plenty of places on the map? People rush power weapons, therefore the fact that people rush to get a BR first tells us that the BR is a bit over powered.
2) I like being redundant too!
3) OK, so you admit that certain people are better with certain weapons, yet everyone wants the BR. Maybe that's because it is unbalanced and can kill at almost any range?

  • 07.15.2009 1:19 PM PDT

I love it how people turned it into more of "What's better? The BR or AR thread" when in fact the OP makes a valid point on how the Battle Rifle does not exist or introduced yet, seeing as how it was not in Halo: CE.

  • 07.15.2009 1:22 PM PDT

Posted by: H3C x Furry
I love it how people turned it into more of "What's better? The BR or AR thread" when in fact the OP makes a valid point on how the Battle Rifle does not exist or introduced yet, seeing as how it was not in Halo: CE.

It existed. Literally 20 minutes after the end of "The Fall of Reach", the spartans find them in a box. They didn't just get developed and made magically in the course of those 20 minutes. Just because the pillar of autumn didn't have any doesn't mean that they didn't have them on Reach.

Also, I believe they had prototype BRs in Contact Harvest.

  • 07.15.2009 1:25 PM PDT

In the days of old, there were legends of a land long lost to time. This land was known as Ranna'Mor. Ranna'Mor was said to contain in its borders 7 warriors. These warriors had once unleashed a veritable hell upon the ancient world, until they were locked away. My name is Toriad, and I am one of those warriors. Our return is approaching. Do not run away, do not cower in fear; take solace in your final days, for that is all we can do. -Legend of Ranna'Mor

Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
[quote]Posted by: JurtEJ
There's no reason BRs couldn't be included based on this principle. They've f'ed a bit with their canon before.

Can you give me any examples of this?[quote]
Yes. In Halo: First Strike, the BR-55 was introduced as a "new weapon." This was due to the fact that First Strike was written as bridge between Halo 1 and 2, and Eric Nylon tried to explain why the BR was suddenly around. But in later books, like Contact Harvest, the BR-55 is used by Sgt. Johnson and his militia forces at the time.

  • 07.15.2009 1:27 PM PDT

The Ghosts of Onyx - Retired Staff

Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: H3C x Furry
I love it how people turned it into more of "What's better? The BR or AR thread" when in fact the OP makes a valid point on how the Battle Rifle does not exist or introduced yet, seeing as how it was not in Halo: CE.

It existed. Literally 20 minutes after the end of "The Fall of Reach", the spartans find them in a box. They didn't just get developed and made magically in the course of those 20 minutes. Just because the pillar of autumn didn't have any doesn't mean that they didn't have them on Reach.

Also, I believe they had prototype BRs in Contact Harvest.

We have been over this. The Spartans did not have BRs, the soldiers on the ground certainly didn't have any prototype weapons, and the only place that did have them was the Castle base, which got hit hard. The Spartans simply did not have access to a BR during the Battle of Reach.

  • 07.15.2009 1:29 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

I'd disagree with this. I'm an avid user of the AR and the dual wieldables, and if you know what you are doing at close range, the BR user doesn't stand a chance. Its simply because the radius between you and your opponent is short, so your angular velocity as you strafe is much higher than far away, so it is harder to lead your shots so all of them hit you. This isn't a problem for the AR or the other dual wieldables as they are constantly firing bullets, but the battle rifle fires in bursts so it can't be as efficient as possible. As long as you can manuever and they don't get you with a grenade or melee headshot you, you have the advantage.All true, but how often do you see people other than you doing this? You obviously have some experience and know what you're talking about, but what about new players? They stand no chance against a BR with an AR. The AR takes practice to learn stuff like that, but a BR is just "aim for the head." Sure, there are things like strafing that you learn over time to survive longer, but it seems much simpler to use than the AR. Or, it's simpler to use a BR to it's full potential than an AR.

Its not so much the fact that the BR is a needed weapon, but there needs to be medium ranged weapons. Other than the awkwardness of balancing a medium ranged scoped pistol, there is no reason why the pistol couldn't replace the BR in this game. The only time I would say one would need a BR is in many of the BTB maps where the environment is very open and very supportive of medium ranged combat, and spawning with a close range weapon when there aren't as many "close range areas" puts you at a large disadvantage. Most the people who say you need to have a BR for flag games just haven't thought of using a grenade and then burst firing their AR. A pistol like what i have proposed would function similarly to a BR to an extent. Yes, a medium ranged weapon is very useful in BTB and maps like Sandtrap and Avalanche function much better with them, but there are other weapons that work just as well. Carbines could easily replace a BR in a BTB scenario. The lack of BRs would give long range combat (i.e. snipers) a bigger opportunity on said maps, and this would allow for more CQB style fighting on larger maps. How often do you see AR fights on Sandtrap? It would mix it up a bit, without making it entirely different.

I wont quote the "Social problem" thing. You covered that well.

1) If you like swat, its your major weapon, and thats a ton of ranked kills going to that weapon.
2) If you like BTB, most the fighting occurs over medium range, the BR is a medium ranged weapon, so you end up using it a lot more than you would use the AR.
3) The kills from the AR are almost evenly split between actual AR, Melee, and Grenade Kills. The BR on the other hand has most it's kills coming from headshots, so its a bit unbalanced with regards to kill tracking.
Yes, it is the major weapon of SWAT. It is also the major weapon in MLG, BTB, and SB. I kind of think we've seen enough BR.

The fighting does not have to occur at range. There is no reason a couple AR shouldn't break out or dual wields shouldn't be used. I covered this in the las section.

The BR also has kills split with the same thing, just to a smaller degree. Still, the BR is used more often than the AR, i think.


There is no noob weapon, each weapon takes skill to use the weapon to their fullest abillity.
I said "noob" when referring to them because that is what some BR lovers call them. The same people that say the BR takes skill and those are for noobs are the ones causing the "noobs" to use them. I totaly agree with you that there is no real "noob" weapon.


I really think that the BR is coming back simply because dual wielding will be coming back as well, and its hard to balance a medium ranged pistol that could possibly also be dual wielded. Hopefully they nerf it a bit more, if it does less damage per shot, it still has the medium ranged advantage over close range weapons yet it is much less effective up close.
Ideally, the new pistol would operate just like CE's did, but at a slightly closer range and way less powerful. It should balance out with Duals well. Unlike the BR, which out ranges them very much and can easily kill from a distance, the pistol user would have to be somewhat close to the dual user. It would be well within range to fire some shots or use a grenade then close in. If it works like i think it would, the better player would end up winning, not the player with the better weapon.

Thank you for the comments.

  • 07.15.2009 1:29 PM PDT

In the days of old, there were legends of a land long lost to time. This land was known as Ranna'Mor. Ranna'Mor was said to contain in its borders 7 warriors. These warriors had once unleashed a veritable hell upon the ancient world, until they were locked away. My name is Toriad, and I am one of those warriors. Our return is approaching. Do not run away, do not cower in fear; take solace in your final days, for that is all we can do. -Legend of Ranna'Mor

Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: H3C x Furry
I love it how people turned it into more of "What's better? The BR or AR thread" when in fact the OP makes a valid point on how the Battle Rifle does not exist or introduced yet, seeing as how it was not in Halo: CE.

It existed. Literally 20 minutes after the end of "The Fall of Reach", the spartans find them in a box. They didn't just get developed and made magically in the course of those 20 minutes. Just because the pillar of autumn didn't have any doesn't mean that they didn't have them on Reach.

Also, I believe they had prototype BRs in Contact Harvest.

We have been over this. The Spartans did not have BRs, the soldiers on the ground certainly didn't have any prototype weapons, and the only place that did have them was the Castle base, which got hit hard. The Spartans simply did not have access to a BR during the Battle of Reach.
Dude, have you read "First Strike"? The Spartans use them on Reach, and later in the book.

  • 07.15.2009 1:30 PM PDT

strength through friendship, love through loyalty.

/facepalm

if they take the br out because you guys QQ..i will quit playing halo.

  • 07.15.2009 1:31 PM PDT

i wouldn't say that the BR ruined halo. and usually i can kill BR users with my AR, mainly because very few "noobs" actually know how to use a BR.

  • 07.15.2009 1:35 PM 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

I'm glad Cheehwawa is in this thread, he saved me a lot of typing. I'm just going to try and keep my thoughts brief and to the point.


Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
The BR is just a weapon with a role. Midrange accuracy. In Halo 1, this weapon was the Pistol. In Halo 2 and 3, it was the BR. Also, MLG actively played Halo 1 before Halo 2 came out; they used bungie's default "Pro" settings which spawned you with a Pistol, AR, and grenades.

I don't think that the BR is the problem in H3, I think that its dual wielding (half-gun syndrome) and general poor weapon design (the BR is the only really versatile weapon, unlike in H1 when even the PR was versatile). Though I would like the BR to be removed, a midrange accuracy weapon is still needed for Halo to be... Halo.

I would like the Halo 1 Pistol to replace the BR, identical in every way to the original except it would be a 6 headshot kill instead of a 3 headshot kill (maybe up the magazine from 12 to 14 to keep with bungie's 2 kills/magazine rule).

The Pistol took skill to use, and if its power is nerfed, it will not be as an effective weapon as even the BR... unless, of course, the user wielding it has lots of skill.


Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
Posted by: Another one
Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
I would like the Halo 1 Pistol to replace the BR, identical in every way to the original except it would be a 6 headshot kill instead of a 3 headshot kill (maybe up the magazine from 12 to 14 to keep with bungie's 2 kills/magazine rule).

The Pistol took skill to use, and if its power is nerfed, it will not be as an effective weapon as even the BR... unless, of course, the user wielding it has lots of skill.


Doesn't the pistol in H3 take 6-7 headshots to kill? I'm probably wrong, but I could've sworn I can kill people fairly quick with it.
H3 Pistol is a 5 headshot kill, but the range is horrible and the ROF is even slower than the BR. BR shoots 2 shots/second, H1 Pistol shoots 3.3 rounds/second.


Those two things are important facts and/or things you should keep in mind. Taking out the BR will leave a void that needs to be filled. You can say there is the carbine, but then that just becomes the new BR. Also, some maps need a mid range weapon to start on. It will be tough to balance a new pistol and please the fans. You can NOT have a single middle range weapon. The thing I'm concerned about mostly is that this notion that the BR is overpowered.

The BR is outclassed by guns at every single range.

The sniper rifles and lasers are better than the BR at long range easily. Arguably, the snipers are even better than the BR within melee range.

The carbine is more powerful than the BR at middle and close range easily. If one player has a carbine and one has a BR and both hit each bullet they shoot the carbine will defeat the BR. The only time the BR can possibly take on the carbine when two players of equal skill are fighting is at long range because it is slightly more accurate. The needler may beat the BR sometimes at mid range too, but that's kind of a coin toss IMO.

Do I even have to list all of the weapons that are better at close range? Spikers, PP+Beatdown, PR, Mauler, Shotgun, Sword, SMGs, Assault rifle. They will all kill quicker than the BR at close range easily.

I wouldn't even say BR isn't overpowered. Its overused at the worst. The problem is that Halo is so CQC weapon heavy that your options for beating at mid-long range are very limited. I mean, finding snipers, carbines, and lasers on maps is pretty hard considering there are very few if any at all on a map. What are plentiful are these CQC weapons which are used improperly to counter a BR at a range they shouldn't be used at because there are so many of them, why not pick one up? Its pretty much guarenteed that people on the other team will have one of the many close quarter combat weapons on each map so you need something to defend with yourself.

In my personal opinion, I think the bigger problem is with the gametypes themselves being slightly in favor of CQC when a lot of action in Halo happens at mid range. More carbines should be on maps IMO. And to be honest, I would rather see an increase in functionality/range/kill speed of close range weapons than the BR getting nerfed or removed.

If it was going to be removed though, I would take a slightly weakened Halo CE pistol. Keep the same RoF and accuracy and scope, make the ammo clip slightly bigger, and make it 6 or even 7 headshots to kill a person instead of 3. Also, bullet magnetism should be decreased, A LOT.

  • 07.15.2009 1:36 PM PDT

The Ghosts of Onyx - Retired Staff

"The Battle Rifle was first used canonically in Halo: Contact Harvest as a prototype, and is first introduced to the Spartans during Halo: First Strike in the tunnels beneath Reach, but it was introduced to gamers in Halo 2."
-from Halopedia

The BR was never used during the actual Battle of Reach.

  • 07.15.2009 1:36 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Misfit197
/facepalm

if they take the br out because you guys QQ..i will quit playing halo.


Okay, I'm sorry, but you sound like an individual that get's BRed in every game he/she plays because you just don't know or don't want to adjust to it.

i read the first sentance of your post and decided that your just an AR lover and have no skill Leave comments like this out of it. This is not a discussion of how good i am, or if you like the BR, it is a discussion about how Removing the BR could effect gameplay and whether or not it belongs in Reach.

  • 07.15.2009 1:37 PM PDT

In the days of old, there were legends of a land long lost to time. This land was known as Ranna'Mor. Ranna'Mor was said to contain in its borders 7 warriors. These warriors had once unleashed a veritable hell upon the ancient world, until they were locked away. My name is Toriad, and I am one of those warriors. Our return is approaching. Do not run away, do not cower in fear; take solace in your final days, for that is all we can do. -Legend of Ranna'Mor

Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: Misfit197
/facepalm

if they take the br out because you guys QQ..i will quit playing halo.


Okay, I'm sorry, but you sound like an individual that get's BRed in every game he/she plays because you just don't know or don't want to adjust to it.

i read the first sentance of your post and decided that your just an AR lover and have no skill Leave comments like this out of it. This is not a discussion of how good i am, or if you like the BR, it is a discussion about how Removing the BR could effect gameplay and whether or not it belongs in Reach.
Well, I would personally hate the removal of the BR. It's a weapon that has become quite familiar for Halo fans, both in games and in story. The removal of the BR would almost force close encounters and give snipers a huge advantage, even if we got the Halo: CE pistol back

  • 07.15.2009 1:40 PM PDT

I'm a lead farmer, mother lover!

Posted by: Toa Freak
Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: H3C x Furry
I love it how people turned it into more of "What's better? The BR or AR thread" when in fact the OP makes a valid point on how the Battle Rifle does not exist or introduced yet, seeing as how it was not in Halo: CE.

It existed. Literally 20 minutes after the end of "The Fall of Reach", the spartans find them in a box. They didn't just get developed and made magically in the course of those 20 minutes. Just because the pillar of autumn didn't have any doesn't mean that they didn't have them on Reach.

Also, I believe they had prototype BRs in Contact Harvest.

We have been over this. The Spartans did not have BRs, the soldiers on the ground certainly didn't have any prototype weapons, and the only place that did have them was the Castle base, which got hit hard. The Spartans simply did not have access to a BR during the Battle of Reach.
Dude, have you read "First Strike"? The Spartans use them on Reach, and later in the book.


Also to validate this further: I agree with the reasoning as to why it was NOT in H:CE, as stockpiling everything in the ship at a moments notice would have been virtually impossible and their cargo was definitely a bit to be left to the imagination however I think the point is proven time and memorum now that it did exist prior to when the game Reach will most likely take place (Saying most likely since we don't know the extent of how much a prequel it is)

  • 07.15.2009 1:41 PM PDT

I liked where your post was going, but getting of the BR to make the pistol a mid range weapon again seems a little off. It would be interesting to see what the gameplay will turn out in Reach. While it might be interesting to see how Halo plays without a BR, I don't think putting the pistol back in will be the fix

  • 07.15.2009 1:42 PM PDT

In the days of old, there were legends of a land long lost to time. This land was known as Ranna'Mor. Ranna'Mor was said to contain in its borders 7 warriors. These warriors had once unleashed a veritable hell upon the ancient world, until they were locked away. My name is Toriad, and I am one of those warriors. Our return is approaching. Do not run away, do not cower in fear; take solace in your final days, for that is all we can do. -Legend of Ranna'Mor

Posted by: JurtEJ
Posted by: Toa Freak
Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: H3C x Furry
I love it how people turned it into more of "What's better? The BR or AR thread" when in fact the OP makes a valid point on how the Battle Rifle does not exist or introduced yet, seeing as how it was not in Halo: CE.

It existed. Literally 20 minutes after the end of "The Fall of Reach", the spartans find them in a box. They didn't just get developed and made magically in the course of those 20 minutes. Just because the pillar of autumn didn't have any doesn't mean that they didn't have them on Reach.

Also, I believe they had prototype BRs in Contact Harvest.

We have been over this. The Spartans did not have BRs, the soldiers on the ground certainly didn't have any prototype weapons, and the only place that did have them was the Castle base, which got hit hard. The Spartans simply did not have access to a BR during the Battle of Reach.
Dude, have you read "First Strike"? The Spartans use them on Reach, and later in the book.


Also to validate this further: I agree with the reasoning as to why it was NOT in H:CE, as stockpiling everything in the ship at a moments notice would have been virtually impossible and their cargo was definitely a bit to be left to the imagination however I think the point is proven time and memorum now that it did exist prior to when the game Reach will most likely take place (Saying most likely since we don't know the extent of how much a prequel it is)
It's an established fact that the BR exists since long before the Halo games. I'm glad someone seems to get that.

  • 07.15.2009 1:47 PM PDT

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

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Hmmm I think the BR is good. It's a good all-rounder but it doesn't dominate any particular specialty except mid-range. At close-range any number of weapons is better, at long-range the snipers and laser take it down, it is useless against vehicles and its spread means that a good Carbine user will give it a hard time at mid-range.

I don't think it could get much better as the ultimate all-rounder weapon in H3.

I wouldn't be surprised if the BR or a variant of the BR appears in Reach. Another zoomed pistol would be pushing it. Maybe a single-shot BR?? I personally have no problems with the current H3 or H2 1.1 BRs.

  • 07.15.2009 1:47 PM PDT

hahaha, your crazy.. the only people that do not like the BR are the bad kids..

  • 07.15.2009 1:48 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

The BR is outclassed by guns at every single range. Very true, but dont forget that the BR outclasses guns form most ranges. At mid range, it easily handles nearly every guns. At long range, all but some power weapon, in the right hands it can even handle ARs, pistols, and spikers at close range.

I agree that more Carbines could be added. I love the wapon but i rarely see it.

I would rather see an increase in functionality/range/kill speed of close range weapons than the BR getting nerfed or removed. That could work, but it would have some pretty drastic repercussions. Let's say they give the SMG a slightly smaller spread. It is just as deadly as before, but at larger distances. They could try toning down it's recoil, but then it would be much easier to slaughter with at close range. Both would make it more effective against the Br, but it would also be more effective against everything else. All auto weapons would either be stronger or larger ranged if you want them to counter battle rifles, and that could cause major issues. Toning down the BR, or replacing with my pistol, would probably be simpler.

  • 07.15.2009 1:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: ween14
  • user homepage:

R.P.

Posted by: Toa Freak
But in later books, like Contact Harvest, the BR-55 is used by Sgt. Johnson and his militia forces at the time.

Contact Harvest was the first book showing the start of the covenant human war in 2525 so I dont know why you are saying in later books.

Correct me if i'm wrong but im almost certain i'm correct.

  • 07.15.2009 1:52 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Toa Freak
Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: Misfit197
/facepalm

if they take the br out because you guys QQ..i will quit playing halo.


Okay, I'm sorry, but you sound like an individual that get's BRed in every game he/she plays because you just don't know or don't want to adjust to it.

i read the first sentance of your post and decided that your just an AR lover and have no skill Leave comments like this out of it. This is not a discussion of how good i am, or if you like the BR, it is a discussion about how Removing the BR could effect gameplay and whether or not it belongs in Reach.
Well, I would personally hate the removal of the BR. It's a weapon that has become quite familiar for Halo fans, both in games and in story. The removal of the BR would almost force close encounters and give snipers a huge advantage, even if we got the Halo: CE pistol back
Snipers would be no more powerful than they are now. Not many maps have just one sniper, so yours could counter the enemy's, and if BRs are removed carbines would be seen much more often.

  • 07.15.2009 1:54 PM PDT