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

just look at this kids service record and it will become clear why he wants the br gone. lol. this kid sucks ass!

  • 07.15.2009 11:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: RolandDeshain45
More than likely there won't be a Battle Rifle in Halo Reach. The Battle Rifle wasn't around during that time. If Halo 1 didn't have it then Halo Reach won't


100% Wrong

  • 07.15.2009 11:47 PM PDT

Posted by: NebulousX07
just look at this kids service record and it will become clear why he wants the br gone. lol. this kid sucks ass!


That's rude, and mabye next time you can use your brain to come up with a unique counter argument.

  • 07.15.2009 11:49 PM PDT

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!!

Please for the love of all things Halo, do not balance this game around some close-ranged insufficient weapon. That would be ridiculously ludicrous.

It really has nothing to do with the presence of a BR that the OP has a problem with. It has to do with the functionality of the H3 BR, which has been complained about quite a bit in the "Only BR Thread". I can only assume, since you reference Halo:CE's weapons as being much better for this game.

But, if they remove a mid-ranged dominant weapon, then they better sure as hell replace it with another. A Magnum would pretty much take its place, and then you would be complaining about that, because whenever a weapon deals headshots and has more range, it will be the most effective weapon.

And, if you want the M6G Magnum from Halo 3, it better have very good range. If not, then Snipers will be unbalanced just like they are in AR starts.

As long as a game has 1-hit Power Weapons, then the game needs a weapon (starting preferred) that can hold its own from range and can do headshots to counter balance it. Halo's balance is made to need a strong starting weapon, or it just turns into a mess of frustration; kind of like Halo:CE with Plasma Pistol Default starts (or SMG starts, or AR starts, et cetera).

The problem with the H3 BR (and H2 BR) is that it fires in bursts which make headshots much easier to pull off. That is really the main flaw in its design. If they had left the functionality of it similar to the M6D with similar range, then the BR would pretty much be the same thing and provide the same feeling that we got from Halo:CE (as long as we weren't forced to play this garbage Default like Bungie has to put in MM).

So, fine, give me a Magnum in Halo:Reach, but it better for sure have alot of range. What this game needs is a dominant balance of the mid-range combat. This close-quarters nonsense is what makes it seem so unbalanced. Hopefully, Bungie is playing some of Red Faction:Guerrilla to see what weapon balance feels like.

  • 07.16.2009 12:02 AM PDT

I see too much asking to remove weapons! remove this and remove that...

I would love to post my opinion but i already did in my thread take a look and tell me what you think.

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=34724452&v iewreplies=true&postRepeater1-p=1

It would be redundant to repeat myself seeing as my basic opinion takes up two pages...

  • 07.16.2009 12:20 AM PDT

Posted by: The EAKLE
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.


I disagree. The BR can be countered with other weapons and just because Noob117 cannot counter it does not mean it should be eliminated from the game. Weapon balance is never as easy as just removing a weapon. Although you did make a few suggestions.

As for people saying it shouldn't be in-game because of story issues is a very sketchy reason why Bungie wouldn't have BRs on Reach.. It's fiction after all. Any sort of reason could come up why BRs were on Reach. They fell outta the sky for all I care.

  • 07.16.2009 12:26 AM PDT

yeah! what he said.


Posted by: LordHellRaiser2
I see too much asking to remove weapons! remove this and remove that...

I would love to post my opinion but i already did in my thread take a look and tell me what you think.

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=34724452&v iewreplies=true&postRepeater1-p=1

It would be redundant to repeat myself seeing as my basic opinion takes up two pages...

  • 07.16.2009 12:40 AM PDT

Elites on Crack!

Posted by: Runic Aries
/facepalm


This man speaks the truth. (Runic that is)

The BR actually reduced the power of your starting weapons, nothing in the halo universe has ever come close to matching the Halo: CE pistol, it kills faster than a battle rifle and could be used to take out tanks in a matter of seconds.

Probally the only reason you believed Halo:CE was more balanced is because due to no matchmaking, all you were playing was your brother and steve from next door.

Also as a side note you made me laugh when I read the "skilled Ar players get beaten in close combat by BR noobs". Thanks for making my day

  • 07.16.2009 3:02 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I know why you dont want the BR becauseur a nooby level 35 that cant use it and always gets owned by it. just face the fact kid ur bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  • 07.16.2009 3:10 AM PDT

Subject: Halo: Reach, is it a game?
Posted by: Skibur
Could it be a movie?
Just putting it out there. Someone find me some evidence for or against.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a Sangheili themed clan? Join Righteous Purpose

I hate comparing games to others, but I feel this will best illustrate my idea. In GoW2 you have the Hammerburst and the Lancer. They both function differently but are equal in power through balance trade-offs. If they were to keep the BR, why not make it similar to the Hammerburst. Then have the AR similar to the Lancer? That way they would both function like actual rifles and the same could be done to the PR and Carbine.

Posted by: SierraM187
I think they should just make changes or 'tweaks' to the weapon. Not obliterate it from the game altogether. It wouldn't make sense either because in the cover of Contact Harvest it clearly shows the Sergeant Johnson wielding the Battle Rifle in his tightly gripped, black masculine hands.

Bungie could make it weaker and make the BR from a three-shot-burst to a single-shot, as we saw in Halo 2's E3 Demo.


[Edited on 07.16.2009 4:10 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2009 4:06 AM PDT

RED BRICK STUDIOS!

Look at my service record, and tell me why I want the BR gone.
Please, I have no idea.

  • 07.16.2009 6:36 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

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

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

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

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

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

  • 07.16.2009 7:07 AM PDT

What are you talking about, the AR has had its chance to shine its your starting weapons in every match. Halo 1 had the pistol witch serves the same function as the BR. Every halo has had a mid range gun, Halo reach will have one too. Weather its a pistol or a BR the "PRO's" are gonna use it.

Also removing a gun from their game would take away depth from the gameplay

oh ya and the ar does work good close range against a BR. Unless you have bad aim

[Edited on 07.16.2009 7:17 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2009 7:14 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: sgtpickle777
Look at my service record, and tell me why I want the BR gone.
Please, I have no idea.

Run along, naive little colonel grade 2.

  • 07.16.2009 7:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

If Bungie is going to remove the BR and return the M6D Pistol(Halo 1 Pistol) in Halo: Reach, they better make it not overpowered. Why? Because if it will be overpowered, it will make the game unbalanced

  • 07.16.2009 7:28 AM PDT

I would be reluctant to see the BR be either turn into a single shot weapon or replaced by a pistol, the carbine is already a very useful single shot weapon. The nice thing about the BR/Carbine situation is that they are roughly equal but very different, a scoped pistol or single shot BR would render the carbine redundant. The 3 shot burst makes for a weapon that is harder and more skillful to use than full auto and rapid single shot.

I don't think the BR needs to be removed, it just needs to stop being a kill machine at all distances. It's nice to have powerful long range weapons in a game, it makes the game more interesting. The problem is that the BR is also a great short range weapon as well, it beats the AR at long, mid AND short ranges. I think for Reach the weapons need to be more specialized, making the BR and sniper long range only. This could be acheived by removing the ability to no-scope.

If the BR and sniper couldn't fire without the scope then the AR would be able to kill them easily once it got near enough but the BR could still beat the AR at longer ranges. The AR would then have it's niche as a mid range weapon, able to outrange the short range weapons but still able to stand up to the long range weapons.

If this happened then the shotgun would be the best short range weapon, the AR would be the best mid range weapon and the BR would be the best long range weapon (excluding power weapons such as the rockets). Because you can only hold 2 weapons there will always be at least one range at which you are weak forcing you to work as a team better.

If the other weapons became more specialized, this would also make room for weapons which can fight at multiple ranges such as the scoped SMG and a scoped pistol which would be 'jack of all trades, master of none'. If these pistols were weaker than all other weapons but useable at all ranges they would be good starting weapon which could then be enhanced with the heavier weapons.


[Edited on 07.16.2009 7:55 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2009 7:29 AM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: holymoses18
Posted by: NebulousX07
just look at this kids service record and it will become clear why he wants the br gone. lol. this kid sucks ass!


That's rude, and mabye next time you can use your brain to come up with a unique counter argument.
Why add to the discussion when you could flame me?

Thank you for all the posts that came in. I've read most of them, but others are so long im going to wait a second. You guys put up some good arguments.

Somone posted that by removing the BR, other weapons would become teh new BR. I doubt that would be an issue. The new Magnum i suggested would not be a devastating weapon like the BR, unless you are a great shot. The Carbine would become much morepopular. It seems less overpowered than the BR so it would not be an issue. I already put up an argument as to why power weapons would not be an issue. Other weapons would be used more, and i dont see an issue with that.

Someone posted scenarios in which a BR loses. The thing is, he only listed three. Most other times, the BR wins.

  • 07.16.2009 8:00 AM PDT

░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█▀▀ ░░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█ ░░░
░█▀▀ ░█▀▀ ░█ ░█ ░░░░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█ ░░░
░▀▀▀ ░▀ ░░░▀ ░▀▀▀ ░░▀ ░░░▀░▀ ░▀ ░▀▀▀ ░

ɱ₳ҫД₮ϮᾇʕƘ1Θ11

I honestly will never understand why people will never just play a game for fun. Games = entertainment. Entertainment is not taken seriously. So then games should not be taken seriously. If you are playing a shooter, why not use what is available to you to get kills? It doesn't matter how you get it, just that you get it. Or you could play for fun, and still just use whatever the hell you want.

I had a game last night on Valhalla where at the beginning of the match, I went right over to the warthog and just started driving around. I didn't get any kills from it, but just seeing a whole team scramble while i zip right by them and start shooting at me was funny as can be.

Play a game for fun. That is the only reason why games were invented in the first place.

  • 07.16.2009 8:06 AM PDT

FOOD!!!

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

No, Bungie is much smarter than that.

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

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

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


the br was first introduced in contact harvest, which was before reach, so yes the br can be in halo reach

  • 07.16.2009 8:14 AM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Twolf88
Posted by: WhatThaSmurf
If Bungie were to stick with their own fiction (which I'm sure they will), this will not even be an issue. The BR did not exist in Halo: CE, therefore how could it possibly exist in a prequel? It wouldn't make any sense at all. "Oh, yeah, it is in the past, but it has weapons from the future..."

No, Bungie is much smarter than that.

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

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

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


the br was first introduced in contact harvest, which was before reach, so yes the br can be in halo reach
We have been over this argument several times already. The BR was in use before Reach, but the Spartans obtain them after Reach and it appears to be a new weapon to them. There is no proof as to if it was actually on Reach or not.

  • 07.16.2009 8:15 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Heroic Member
  • gamertag: ASJ07
  • user homepage:

The BR comes in Halo 2, so, since Halo Reach takes place before Halo 1 and Halo Wars, it should be taken away.

[Edited on 07.16.2009 8:17 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2009 8:17 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: Avian005
Posted by: D PALMERIZER
Posted by: The EAKLE
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.


Here's were i stopped reading because you lost all credibility.
No he didn't.


He kind of did. MLG has been a company that has had playable Halo gametypes since 2002. Notably "Slayer Pro" which was a huge fan favorite at the time. MLG held I believe it was 13 Halo CE tournaments over the course of 2003-2004 using Slayer Pro settings.

Another problem with the OPs argument is that until I think July of 2005, the BR sucked in Halo. You might be wondering about this, well, the BR changed from what was shown in the E3 preview of H2 into a useless weapon until it was updated in 2005. Multiple MLG tourneys were held before the update and for a lot of 2005, dual wielding and other guns not seen in later seasons were seen in MLG. It was the MLG community itself that demanded the change towards more circular weapon gametypes that revolved around the BR, MLG simply complied.

Posting falsehoods like that make people question whether the OP really does know a lot about Halo to where he should be in the position of telling the devs how to develop their game. I mean, who knows what else he just assumed was correct and threw in there?

  • 07.16.2009 8:27 AM PDT

Beware the smiley face! =D

This thread receives the holy blessing of Chuck Norris. May its wise words be heeded by bungie.

Enough of the fancy talk. nice thread. Much better than that epic failiure that is the "Remove AR" thread.

  • 07.16.2009 8:27 AM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: Rammal94
This thread receives the holy blessing of Chuck Norris. May its wise words be heeded by bungie.

Enough of the fancy talk. nice thread. Much better than that epic failiure that is the "Remove AR" thread.
That is actually a parody thread of this one. He got mad at my suggestion so he made his own.

  • 07.16.2009 8:30 AM PDT

This thread is just stupid.

You all seem to be assuming that Reach will be the same as the other Halos in terms of gameplay, and I'm pretty sure that it won't..

  • 07.16.2009 8:30 AM PDT