Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Balance the game out!!
  • Subject: Balance the game out!!
Subject: Balance the game out!!

An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
- Jef Mallett

Call of Duty is not realistic. When you get shot, you don't duck behind a wall and wait for your health to regenerate. There is no Juggernaut perk, and there is no mini map UAV to tell you where everyone is once you kill 3 terrorists.

Bansheeownz, I read your super long post above, I think you've got what should/should've been in the game down to a science. I agree with it all. And I think the Plasma weapons could stand to be more powerful. Maybe the same power as an SMG? Not in the same rate of fire or damage per shot stance mind you, but like in a one on one fight. A PR should kill an unshielded opponent just as fast as an SMG at least.

  • 07.22.2009 5:58 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!!

The reason why the OP has such a problem is because of how unbalanced Bungie makes this game seem. We never complained about this during Halo:CE, because we just played with M6D starts. A starting weapon that balances the game out, such as how the M6D did, is the answer. But, "Oh Nowz! It's overpowered", says the person who knows nothing about balance. (the M6D and the BR are only so much effective because everything else is a close-ranged weapon) But, if you want balance, then do what other games do and have a starting weapon that is effective (that can defend against both the Rocket and Sniper). It really is as simple as that. But, I'm sure Bungie and their ass-humpers are stuck on the idea that you shouldn't start with an effective weapon. It's too bad because this game does have potential; it's ashame it will probably be all wasted for the sake of AR starts.

  • 07.22.2009 6:04 PM PDT

Posted by: RifleMan Joe
Call of Duty is not realistic. When you get shot, you don't duck behind a wall and wait for your health to regenerate. There is no Juggernaut perk, and there is no mini map UAV to tell you where everyone is once you kill 3 terrorists.

Bansheeownz, I read your super long post above, I think you've got what should/should've been in the game down to a science. I agree with it all. And I think the Plasma weapons could stand to be more powerful. Maybe the same power as an SMG? Not in the same rate of fire or damage per shot stance mind you, but like in a one on one fight. A PR should kill an unshielded opponent just as fast as an SMG at least.


Everything=Everything=Boring game. Most games use what is called a rock, paper, scissors balance. I know people don't like it, but everyone uses it. Call of Duty uses it, and that is why certain weapons kill faster than others. Team Fortress 2 uses it with different weapons that work within a certain range with certain weapons weaker than others.

  • 07.22.2009 6:08 PM PDT

I'm a 15 year old stuck in the middle of nowhere. Machinima director, screenplay writer, novelist, jazz musician, and Photoshop junkie.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
The reason why the OP has such a problem is because of how unbalanced Bungie makes this game seem. We never complained about this during Halo:CE, because we just played with M6D starts. A starting weapon that balances the game out, such as how the M6D did, is the answer. But, "Oh Nowz! It's overpowered", says the person who knows nothing about balance. (the M6D and the BR are only so much effective because everything else is a close-ranged weapon) But, if you want balance, then do what other games do and have a starting weapon that is effective (that can defend against both the Rocket and Sniper). It really is as simple as that. But, I'm sure Bungie and their ass-humpers are stuck on the idea that you shouldn't start with an effective weapon. It's too bad because this game does have potential; it's ashame it will probably be all wasted for the sake of AR starts.
I totally agree. That's why I'm glad we won't see the Battle Rifle will not be in O.D.S.T.

  • 07.22.2009 6:16 PM PDT

If you want to see the MC die, play Legendary. If you want to see MC finish the fight, play Halo 3. If you want to see MC finish the fight by dieing, why did you waste six years when you could have done it yourself right now?

☼►Popular Fusion - Doing anything, everything, and then some.◄☼

Posted by: RifleMan Joe
Bansheeownz, I read your super long post above, I think you've got what should/should've been in the game down to a science. I agree with it all. And I think the Plasma weapons could stand to be more powerful. Maybe the same power as an SMG? Not in the same rate of fire or damage per shot stance mind you, but like in a one on one fight. A PR should kill an unshielded opponent just as fast as an SMG at least.

I appreciate it. Back before Halo 3 came out, I made an intensely, absolutely enourmous thread exclusively devoted to the power levels of weapons. It was huge. I had to complete it in 3 posts. There were even 4 different versions to it. I realize now that is the wrong approach. Power levels are the subject of the testing process, not before you even begin. What we need to discuss now is what features and abilities the weapons should have, not how strong they are.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
The reason why the OP has such a problem is because of how unbalanced Bungie makes this game seem. We never complained about this during Halo:CE, because we just played with M6D starts. A starting weapon that balances the game out, such as how the M6D did, is the answer. But, "Oh Nowz! It's overpowered", says the person who knows nothing about balance. (the M6D and the BR are only so much effective because everything else is a close-ranged weapon) But, if you want balance, then do what other games do and have a starting weapon that is effective (that can defend against both the Rocket and Sniper). It really is as simple as that. But, I'm sure Bungie and their ass-humpers are stuck on the idea that you shouldn't start with an effective weapon. It's too bad because this game does have potential; it's ashame it will probably be all wasted for the sake of AR starts.

There are plenty of games where the starting weapon is the Battle Rifle. That changes tactics up a lot and I believe balances the game pretty well, but I don't want every gametype to do this. One of the things that makes Halo so great IS its emphasis on close range combat. That, and the pure fiction of being the ultimate badass. I wouldn't change a thing about it, except focus my ideas towards that theme.

[Edited on 07.22.2009 6:20 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2009 6:19 PM PDT

I'm a 15 year old stuck in the middle of nowhere. Machinima director, screenplay writer, novelist, jazz musician, and Photoshop junkie.

Now that I think of it. I really wish the BR wasn't added.

  • 07.22.2009 6:27 PM PDT

Dogs, everywhere

Get out of halo if you like COD, you can't compare them, they are nothing alike, if bungie did that crap then they would fail and become, UNORIGINAL

  • 07.22.2009 6:29 PM PDT

If you want to see the MC die, play Legendary. If you want to see MC finish the fight, play Halo 3. If you want to see MC finish the fight by dieing, why did you waste six years when you could have done it yourself right now?

☼►Popular Fusion - Doing anything, everything, and then some.◄☼

Posted by: Blue Max70
Now that I think of it. I really wish the BR wasn't added.

And what then? Bring back the Halo: CE Pistol? That's working backwards. What's that? Don't bring back the CE Pistol? Oh, NOW the Sniper is overpowered!

The Battle Rifle and Carbine, or something like them are essential to the Halo Multiplayer library. You can't take them away. Although you seem to like what they've done with Halo: ODST. Sounds to me like you just don't like the way it looks, or you can't make up your mind.

[Edited on 07.22.2009 6:35 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2009 6:31 PM PDT

An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
- Jef Mallett

I like the BR and the Halo CE pistol, the thing is to me, is that the BR is waaay overused.

That's right, I don't like BR starts. Hate it.

Why? Because it eliminates the purpose of picking up anything else other than rockets or the sniper rifle. I like Halo, and I'm pretty damn good at it. But I get sick of having to rely on it as my only mainstay weapon. I love Spikers, I think the Carbine should be in more maps, I miss Maulers, and I think there should only be like, 1-2 BR spawns on a map, not 5-6 (like in The Pit).

Sure you could argue, "then dont use it noob!" but my point still stands, I like variety. Every time Bungie releases gameplay pictures or the like where players are carrying Brute Shots and Plasma Rifles, and Gravity Hammers, and -blam!- is flying everywhere, I sigh because I know my first game (and every one after that) is most likely going to be BR starts and nothing else. Assembly to me was a big disappointment because it had potential to be a chaotic map (as well as Ghost Town), instead, all I get are BR starts on it.

[Edited on 07.22.2009 6:58 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2009 6:57 PM PDT

If you want to see the MC die, play Legendary. If you want to see MC finish the fight, play Halo 3. If you want to see MC finish the fight by dieing, why did you waste six years when you could have done it yourself right now?

☼►Popular Fusion - Doing anything, everything, and then some.◄☼

Posted by: RifleMan Joe
I like the BR and the Halo CE pistol, the thing is to me, is that the BR is waaay overused.

That's right, I don't like BR starts. Hate it.

Why? Because it eliminates the purpose of picking up anything else other than rockets or the sniper rifle. I like Halo, and I'm pretty damn good at it. But I get sick of having to rely on it as my only mainstay weapon. I love Spikers, I think the Carbine should be in more maps, I miss Maulers, and I think there should only be like, 1-2 BR spawns on a map, not 5-6 (like in The Pit).

Sure you could argue, "then dont use it noob!" but my point still stands, I like variety. Every time Bungie releases gameplay pictures or the like where players are carrying Brute Shots and Plasma Rifles, and Gravity Hammers, and -blam!- is flying everywhere, I sigh because I know my first game (and every one after that) is most likely going to be BR starts and nothing else. Assembly to me was a big disappointment because it had potential to be a chaotic map (as well as Ghost Town), instead, all I get are BR starts on it.

Now you're thinking. It's not about the weapons. It's about variety. I would be perfectly satisfied if there were maptypes completely devoted to different starting weapons. One for the AR and one for the BR. There could be sets for different themes, like brute, covenant, heavy and even an entire playlist devoted to plasma weapons only. For the sheer variety itself.

On the BR set however, lighter weapons are replaced. There will be less SMGs and PRs and more Brute Shots, Needlers and Carbines.

I do really like idea of having playlists devoted to free for all in which things like rockets are replaced.

  • 07.22.2009 7:05 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!!

Posted by: bansheeownz
There are plenty of games where the starting weapon is the Battle Rifle. That changes tactics up a lot and I believe balances the game pretty well, but I don't want every gametype to do this. One of the things that makes Halo so great IS its emphasis on close range combat. That, and the pure fiction of being the ultimate badass. I wouldn't change a thing about it, except focus my ideas towards that theme.
I don't mind starting with different weapons. My problem is with close-range. The weapons that are close-ranged weapons are situational weapons; they always have been. For example, when you have a Shotgun, you don't run around a map with it up; you only swap to it when entering close-quarters. Most of the "variety" people use as an excuse to say the BR is overpowered is designed for close-range, and therefore can only be used in certain situations. It amplifies the unbalanced nature of this game, and makes many encounters very frustrating, when they are used as a starting weapon.

What Bungie should seriously think about doing for Reach is get more of those mid-ranged weapons in the game (or at least increase the ranges significantly of the weapons they already have), so the game doesn't revolve around this notion that close-range is where everyone should be fighting. They should only use close-ranged weapons to get the upperhand when they are in close quarters, and that can be done like how it is with Halo 3, where close-ranged weapons are dominant over all other weapons at that range. But, there is no reason why someone should have to be forced into a ranged situation without a ranged-capable weapon.

The reason why they have been progressively nerfing one of the very few weapons that turned this game into a popular and competitive shooter is for the sake of starting with a close-ranged weapon. That is the problem I have, and I believe it is a poor choice in weapon balance and design.

Red Faction:Guerrilla balances their weapons beautifully, BTW. You can actually choose to use any weapon in that game, and do decently, provided you are good with the wepaon. But, there are other even more balanced games (not including COD or Gears).

-----------------------------------------

I also read part of your post of your ideas in the page before...
While I agree with some of it, I sincerely do not about the Vehicle balance.
As it is right now, which began with Halo 2's Vehicles, they are overpowered. Yes, there are certain things like equipment or what not that can be effective. However, that does not change the fact that they are overpowered. They were severely overpowered in Halo 2, which is why Bungie took effort into correcting that obvious flaw in the game, by adding various ways to take them out.

In comparison, Rockets and Snipers are overpowered in AR starts. Yes, there are BRs or M6Gs that can attack those weapons. But, when you don't start with a defense against certain powerful weapons, it makes those weapons overpowered. This is kind of what I am talking about with the Vehicles.

In Halo:CE, we didn't consider Vehicles as an overpowered nuissance, like we do with the other Halos. Now, why is this? It is because of the Physics between the Frag and the Vehicle. The skillful placement of a Frag was enough to defend against a Hog or Ghost. Also, the Tank did not have a shield over the driver. There were elements in the game design that made these things much more balanced than they are now. Vehicles should not be something that gives you the ability to just drive around the whole game; that makes them unbalanced.

My problem with your idea toward the Vehicles is you proposed that they should be stronger. Now, that is just flat out wrong IMO. The balance should be more toward the person on foot than it is right now. And, until it is, it will just be some overpowered annoying aspect of the game. It doesn't make the game more fun or balanced; being able to flip and fight a Vehicle when you spawn does.

Hopefully I didn't misread any of your thoughts on the Vehicles; I kind of just glanced over it.

  • 07.22.2009 7:08 PM PDT

@Helveck

Just an Average Joe...

Its called skills and tactics. First one smart enough to get to said power weapon without dying, has its reward - the power weapon. Its part of the game and how its meant to be played, IT IS NOT AN IMBALANCE.

  • 07.22.2009 7:08 PM PDT

If you want to see the MC die, play Legendary. If you want to see MC finish the fight, play Halo 3. If you want to see MC finish the fight by dieing, why did you waste six years when you could have done it yourself right now?

☼►Popular Fusion - Doing anything, everything, and then some.◄☼

You read correctly, Jiggly but only to a point. The point I was trying to make was to make Covenant inferior vehicles equal to Human vehicles (I didn't actually mention this though). What you're trying to explain is you've got a problem with vehicles in general. I actually have zero problem with vehicles. An awareness of the battlefield and where the power weapons and vehicles are goes an extremely long way. It's the core of the Halo experience. What Halo 3 has done is taken the power of vehicles and kept it the way it was meant to be, then countered it from being too overpowering. My opinion of small arms transfers over to vehicles. Make things as powerful as they need to be for efficiency, then balance the map, not the weapon.

Oh, right. About the first part of your post. Pretty much what I said about vehicles.

[Edited on 07.22.2009 7:25 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2009 7:21 PM PDT

CoD 4 doesn't solve anything. Balancing a game correctly is exceptionally difficult and I don't know of any example of it being very well done. CoD 4 the M16 is overpowered and Martyrdom is just stupid (Why do you need a perk for something you can already do with the game controls and where does that grenade come from when you have none?) Also if you can create your own class in Halo everyone would just run rockets and snipe, maybe a BR. It would be even worse than it is now.

  • 07.22.2009 7:25 PM PDT

Posted by: bansheeownz
You read correctly, Jiggly but only to a point. The point I was trying to make was to make Covenant inferior vehicles equal to Human vehicles (I didn't actually mention this though). What you're trying to explain is you've got a problem with vehicles in general. I actually have zero problem with vehicles. An awareness of the battlefield and where the power weapons and vehicles are goes an extremely long way. It's the core of the Halo experience. What Halo 3 has done is taken the power of vehicles and kept it the way it was meant to be, then countered it from being too overpowering. My opinion of small arms transfers over to vehicles. Make things as powerful as they need to be for efficiency, then balance the map, not the weapon.


I have a problem with vehicles. Driving away and letting your shields go up should not keep a broken vehicle alive so the player can then continue to slaughter others. In Halo 1 you could take down players in a vehicle with a grenade or two, and you could shoot the driver out of the seat. Now players some how have 25% extra shields and it somehow takes more bullets to kill them when they are in a vehicle. Same thing when being attached to a turret. Why does holding a stationary turret make you stronger than a ripped off turret? Nobody knows. It is horrible for balance.

  • 07.22.2009 7:28 PM PDT

Posted by: Hypogonadism
CoD 4 doesn't solve anything. Balancing a game correctly is exceptionally difficult and I don't know of any example of it being very well done. CoD 4 the M16 is overpowered and Martyrdom is just stupid (Why do you need a perk for something you can already do with the game controls and where does that grenade come from when you have none?) Also if you can create your own class in Halo everyone would just run rockets and snipe, maybe a BR. It would be even worse than it is now.


The only reason Call of Duty's balance seems ok is due to the fact that it takes a few bullets to kill with any gun. So even though certain weapons are stronger they can still be beaten rather easily by a weaker gun. If Call of Duty had shields and took more bullets to kill the game would seem extremely unbalanced.

  • 07.22.2009 7:32 PM PDT

When it comes to Free for All, maps should be forged to remove most of the power weapons. But in team games...

MAP CONTROL. You only have four rockets every 180 seconds. That's four kills max out of 50. If your team is letting the enemy get the rockets every time without paying attention to when it spawns, you're in trouble. The vast majority of the kills that happen in games happen due to the AR, BR or melee anyway.

Rockets can't tip the balance in your favour too often. The Sniper might, but that's it.

And don't compare Halo 3 to COD4 in terms of game balance. I'm sorry, but I find myself extremely offended every time this happens. COD4 throws balance out the window. Perks are unbalanced. Weapons are unbalanced. So many options are unusable. Deathmatch games just devolve into camp-fests.

Random spawns.

I understand your frustration with the rockets, but learn to rush for it with your team so it doesn't happen to you, and learn to dodge a little. They have a smaller area of effect now. If you see someone with the rockets, stay away. Don't run up to him shooting.

And remember that it's your fault for letting him get it.

  • 07.22.2009 7:32 PM PDT

If you want to see the MC die, play Legendary. If you want to see MC finish the fight, play Halo 3. If you want to see MC finish the fight by dieing, why did you waste six years when you could have done it yourself right now?

☼►Popular Fusion - Doing anything, everything, and then some.◄☼

Posted by: disgruntledfan2
I have a problem with vehicles. Driving away and letting your shields go up should not keep a broken vehicle alive so the player can then continue to slaughter others. In Halo 1 you could take down players in a vehicle with a grenade or two, and you could shoot the driver out of the seat. Now players some how have 25% extra shields and it somehow takes more bullets to kill them when they are in a vehicle. Same thing when being attached to a turret. Why does holding a stationary turret make you stronger than a ripped off turret? Nobody knows. It is horrible for balance.

What? Really? That would explain a lot if it's true, but I don't think it's "horrible for balance." Most times when I've seen a vehicle being destroyed, it's because the vehicle flipped. Some of this is because of human error but most of it is because of enemy fire. It doesn't seem to me like that much of a problem.

[Edited on 07.22.2009 8:11 PM PDT]

  • 07.22.2009 7:34 PM PDT

An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
- Jef Mallett

The only problem I have with vehicle health (more specifically the Warthog) is how players in specific seats take damage.

For instance, in a fully loaded warthog, the passenger dies first, no matter where you shoot the Warthog, he will always be first to die, followed by the driver, and finally the gunner on the back. This never made sense to me, why would the guy being protected by the Warthog die before the gunner who is far more visible? I gun often and it has never made sense to me why my driver dies when we are stuck on the back of the Warthog, often usually right next to me.

I'd like to see this remedied. The driver should be the last to die in my opinion, simply because he's the most protected by the Warthog.

  • 07.22.2009 7:39 PM PDT

"What's the last thing a dead backseater ever hears from his pilot?"
"Watch this!"

Posted by: BULLETxSP0NGE
Posted by: Blue Max70
Posted by: Da Weeman1
Some people like this, it is not a problom. This is one of the reasons it is played more than cod
Your wrong. People don't like when you spawn right in front of a guy with a rocket launcher.

You're wrong. The point of all three Halo games has been map control. The team with the rockets deserves the advantage because they fought to get them and won. Go play something else if you don't like it. Spawning in front of a rocket launcher is a spawn problem not a balance problem.


and they usually fix them in the monthly updates if its a serious problem.

  • 07.22.2009 10:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beat you to it!

Posted by: bansheeownz
Posted by: Halo Reach
I would go to say that 1 Plasma Rifle could compare to the default AR. I would say that most AR battles end in a beat down anyways, so the AR would also fit in that specific scenario. It all depends on who's using the weapons. If somebody uses a Plasma Rifle and decides to stay back and not go for a beat down, then they are the fool. If somebody uses an Assault Rifle against a Plasma Rifle and decides to go for the beat down, then they are the fool.


That's just it though. In a straight fight, on open terrain, do you think its fair to give the advantage to the Assault Rifle this way? I mean, what's stopping you from strafing and dodging most of the plasma shots? Against two, intelligent opponents, the advantage will always be with to the one with the Assault Rifle, period. Plasma man going for the melee? Backpedal and strafe and keep him from doing it. Worst case scenario? Dodge as much as you can and go for the melee. What's that? You both died as the same time? How so very interesting.
True, but you can't rely alone on somebody's intelligence. There are obviously many people out there who don't strategize whatsoever, and just charge right in, giving the advantage away to the Plasma Rifle. I'll admit, in a situation with the AR holder being intelligent, he should have the advantage. But there are many cases in which the opposite is true.

I would also say that your logic is flawed, in the way that you are only thinking of 1v1. In any team match, lets just say a 2v2 battle, it would be really handy to have a Plasma coupled with a Human weapon, opposed to a Human and another Human weapon. The person with the plasma could just get someones shields down quickly with just a couple shots, and then someone with a BR would easily cleanup with 1 shot, and then do the same to the remaining person.

  • 07.22.2009 10:53 PM PDT

Death to rank junkies.

Posted by: Honourable Elite
All the sudden bullets are more effective than Plasma. Which is strange because plasma is really poweful compared to bullets. I think Bungie should make it worth picking up Plasma weapons once again.


This.

  • 07.22.2009 11:42 PM PDT

If you want to see the MC die, play Legendary. If you want to see MC finish the fight, play Halo 3. If you want to see MC finish the fight by dieing, why did you waste six years when you could have done it yourself right now?

☼►Popular Fusion - Doing anything, everything, and then some.◄☼

Posted by: Halo Reach
True, but you can't rely alone on somebody's intelligence. There are obviously many people out there who don't strategize whatsoever, and just charge right in, giving the advantage away to the Plasma Rifle. I'll admit, in a situation with the AR holder being intelligent, he should have the advantage. But there are many cases in which the opposite is true.

I would also say that your logic is flawed, in the way that you are only thinking of 1v1. In any team match, lets just say a 2v2 battle, it would be really handy to have a Plasma coupled with a Human weapon, opposed to a Human and another Human weapon. The person with the plasma could just get someones shields down quickly with just a couple shots, and then someone with a BR would easily cleanup with 1 shot, and then do the same to the remaining person.

The first paragraph, I almost feel offended by, but I guess it's true. I've watched so many films of Lone Wolves where I've done extremely well strategically and had a much higher spread then anyone in the game, but I didn't win the most kills. What was the leader doing the whole time? He didn't pick up a single weapon. All he did was charge.

As for the second paragraph, what you say is true but, what I'm trying to provide is examples. I don't want to go into an elaborate explanation of what EVERY single person is doing in my example. I really want to hear what you have to say about my suggestions for plasma weapons. It's on the second page.

  • 07.22.2009 11:50 PM PDT

An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
- Jef Mallett

I don't think Plasma weapons should home as you suggested Banshee, but the shots should move at a much faster rate, like the canon on top of the Specter in Halo 2. And the headshots causing a stun effect (ala Halo CE) is also a good idea too. In fact, I think plasma weapons should stun vehicles like the did. It allowed an experienced Ghost pilot to take down much larger vehicles.

Posted by: bansheeownz
Now you're thinking. It's not about the weapons.

Thank you, I've always thought that. I just recently started posting in the Public forums again, which is why you've never heard me. :)

[Edited on 07.23.2009 12:24 AM PDT]

  • 07.23.2009 12:07 AM PDT
Subject: Don't get me wrong but...

Nothing is better than gaming through the day, into the night, then back into the day. It's like when you finally push that power button you feel like you've accomplished nothing, but at the same time, you can't stop smiling.

Posted by: Blue Max70
Posted by: Da Weeman1
Some people like this, it is not a problom. This is one of the reasons it is played more than cod
Your wrong. People don't like when you spawn right in front of a guy with a rocket launcher.


That also happens in COD4. Plus, Halo is a harder game to be consistently good at when you get to higher levels. With COD4 you just use the M16 and kill people in one burst.

  • 07.23.2009 12:21 AM PDT