Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Rebalancing the BR (v2)
  • Subject: Rebalancing the BR (v2)
Subject: Rebalancing the BR (v2)
  • gamertag: L0RCH
  • user homepage:

God damn it.
The BR already got its rebalance. It's called br spread.
Just because you are not able to pick up kills with it or others are better then you with a weapon bungie doesn't need to take it out or make it useless.
Halo is not a game for bad players only. A good part of the halo community is somewhat good at the game, and these people like the br the way it is. I think the br spread is a good mix between a br for good players (h2 br) and a br for bad players (what you want). I do understand that halo can't be a game for good players, but that doesn't mean that it has to be a game for bad players.

Next time someone kills you with his oh so evil br think about why you hadn't a br or were not good enough with your br to kill him. It's not the br's fault.

  • 07.31.2009 2:12 PM PDT

Posted by: Rakata
God damn it.
The BR already got its rebalance. It's called br spread.
Just because you are not able to pick up kills with it or others are better then you with a weapon bungie doesn't need to take it out or make it useless.
Halo is not a game for bad players only. A good part of the halo community is somewhat good at the game, and these people like the br the way it is. I think the br spread is a good mix between a br for good players (h2 br) and a br for bad players (what you want). I do understand that halo can't be a game for good players, but that doesn't mean that it has to be a game for bad players.

Next time someone kills you with his oh so evil br think about why you hadn't a br or were not good enough with your br to kill him. It's not the br's fault.



thank god i am not alone, this man has the right idea :P

  • 07.31.2009 2:15 PM PDT

Voilà!In view,a humble vaudevillian veteran,cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate.This visage, no mere veneer of vanity,is a vestige of the vox populi,now vacant, vanished.However,this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation,stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

Posted by: I UnSe3N I
Posted by: The EAKLE
Posted by: I UnSe3N I
There are three problems with this thread. The first is that it is a duplicate of another thread (against the rules). The second is that because you are talking about specifically the BR this should go into the only BR thread on the Halo 3 forum. So now that I have shown you that you have clearly broken forum rules I will proceed to tell you my third reason why there is a problem with your idea.
I asked a Ninja to lock the old one so i could post the new one. If a Ninja allows it, i don thin kit's against the rules. Also, it is not a duplicate, it is entirely different although the purpose is the same.

This is about Halo: Reach, not Halo 3. Why post it in the Halo 3 forum? Again, if a ninja allowed this i doubt it is breaking rules.

Making a suggestion is selfish? Wouldnt that make your suggestion selfish too, because you are asking for more? No, a suggestion is not selfish. If i said "The BR is stupid and bad, remove it" I would be selfish. Im just suggesting what i think will make the game better.

My suggestions are not selfish because I am promoting more for everyone not an individual point of view. Yes, you are pretty much saying that the BR is stupid and bad. The only difference is that you attempt to use arguments to support this notion instead of saying it outright. What you think will make the game better is not what everyone thinks will make the game better thats why your idea is flawed.

I don't understand why you are being so selfish and not thinking of the Big picture. There are people who like the BR. No matter how much you think that it hurts your idea of what gameplay should be like this will always be true. Bungie knows that there are people that enjoy the BR and I doubt they would ever remove it. They will likely just implement more settings so that everyone is happy. More options broadens a games audience and creates more sales. Its common sense. Also if the BR is removed what will the anti sniper weapon be? Next I suppose you will want the sniper to be removed on the grounds that nothing can compete with it at long range. So it encourages camping etc.
That almost makes me think you didnt read the OP. The point is not removing the BR, it is re-balancing it. That may involve replacing it with another weapon. However, all the weapon sets i suggested have a mid range weapon, which would fill this gap you are talking about.

The statement in Bold is in direct contradiction. If you replace the BR with another weapon is it not removed?
I am not promoting only more options for competitive type settings I am advocating more settings for every style of play. This would make the game more accessible for any interest or idea of what gameplay should be (ex) griftball, zombies, rocket race, MLG, swatt. All of those gametypes are a spawn of Bungie giving more options to players thus promoting a wider fan base and equality. Your ideas are in direct contradiction of this. You make it sound like i am trying to ruin Halo. Everyone can have his own ideas on what should happen. Im not trying to put down yours, so why try to put down mine?


I am just stating that what you advocate would impose your idea of what gameplay should be like on everyone. Not ever person agrees on how Halo should be played so therein lies the problem with imposing one type of gameplay on everyone. That is why simply giving players the freedom to play as they see fit is a better solution to this dilemma.


What you say you advocate, and what he says he advocates are simply parallel

While you say we should get custom options to suit our gameplay needs

He says that if you wish to use your BR for long mid range combat you may but if someone wishes to use their AR against your BR in mid range them should be able to fight on equal footing as you

He is not forcing on type of gameplay on anyone, He is simply suggesting that in a certain range most of the weapons should come together on equal footing, promoting every type of gameplay at once

  • 07.31.2009 2:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: jonesy90000
i just relised what you really want isnt for the br to dissaper anymore but to make so weak bungie will have to change it to stop being a starting wepon and what will you then start.

then you will start the omgz thank you bungies nowzz make the stating wepon a roket lucher pleazzzz


I agree. If you have a problem with the matchmaking settings or the way the game plays just make your own settings and play customs. Better yet ask for more setting options. Problem solved.

Whenever you start limiting players options you ruin the experience for some players.

  • 07.31.2009 2:16 PM PDT

Voilà!In view,a humble vaudevillian veteran,cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate.This visage, no mere veneer of vanity,is a vestige of the vox populi,now vacant, vanished.However,this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation,stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

Posted by: jonesy90000
i just relised what you really want isnt for the br to dissaper anymore but to make so weak bungie will have to change it to stop being a starting wepon and what will you then start.

then you will start the omgz thank you bungies nowzz make the stating wepon a roket lucher pleazzzz


Spellcheck and Grammar, your post makes you look like a retarded six-year old. If you wish to be taken seriously type, and post in an exceptable manner, not in this incoherent ranting you assume to be English.

  • 07.31.2009 2:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think the other weapons need to be made more versatile, specifically the close range weapons and the BR should lose its spread but keep the Halo 3 rate of fire. The carbine should also loose its spread.

[Edited on 07.31.2009 2:33 PM PDT]

  • 07.31.2009 2:29 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: jonesy90000
Posted by: Rakata
God damn it.
The BR already got its rebalance. It's called br spread.
Just because you are not able to pick up kills with it or others are better then you with a weapon bungie doesn't need to take it out or make it useless.
Halo is not a game for bad players only. A good part of the halo community is somewhat good at the game, and these people like the br the way it is. I think the br spread is a good mix between a br for good players (h2 br) and a br for bad players (what you want). I do understand that halo can't be a game for good players, but that doesn't mean that it has to be a game for bad players.

Next time someone kills you with his oh so evil br think about why you hadn't a br or were not good enough with your br to kill him. It's not the br's fault.



thank god i am not alone, this man has the right idea :P


I'm sorry, but your opinion is that instead of fixing something unbalanced others should simply learn to exploit the lack of balance? That is pretty damn stupid (though all too common a thought).

Considering that the addition of the BR openned up the game for the casual market by making it so damn easy in the first place, the line of thought that the Halo is not only for bad players in defense of the BR is pretty weak. Halo CE was not as widely enjoyed as Halo2 or 3, many felt the learning curve was too strict, and Halo2 simplified it while Halo3 practically flattened it.

  • 07.31.2009 2:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I think its fine if Bungie wants to weaken the BR in their matchmaking playlists to make the game more accessible. With that being said custom settings should be the medium for anyone to play things other than team slayer, lone wolves etc. So these settings are very important to competitive and alternative players. While they could weaken weapons or remove them from matchmaking they should allow for the opposite to occur in custom games. That way everyone can play the way they want.

  • 07.31.2009 3:01 PM PDT

Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: jonesy90000
Posted by: Rakata
God damn it.
The BR already got its rebalance. It's called br spread.
Just because you are not able to pick up kills with it or others are better then you with a weapon bungie doesn't need to take it out or make it useless.
Halo is not a game for bad players only. A good part of the halo community is somewhat good at the game, and these people like the br the way it is. I think the br spread is a good mix between a br for good players (h2 br) and a br for bad players (what you want). I do understand that halo can't be a game for good players, but that doesn't mean that it has to be a game for bad players.

Next time someone kills you with his oh so evil br think about why you hadn't a br or were not good enough with your br to kill him. It's not the br's fault.



thank god i am not alone, this man has the right idea :P


I'm sorry, but your opinion is that instead of fixing something unbalanced others should simply learn to exploit the lack of balance? That is pretty damn stupid (though all too common a thought).

Considering that the addition of the BR openned up the game for the casual market by making it so damn easy in the first place, the line of thought that the Halo is not only for bad players in defense of the BR is pretty weak. Halo CE was not as widely enjoyed as Halo2 or 3, many felt the learning curve was too strict, and Halo2 simplified it while Halo3 practically flattened it.


What do you me by flattened it?

  • 07.31.2009 3:02 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: jonesy90000
Posted by: Rakata
God damn it.
The BR already got its rebalance. It's called br spread.
Just because you are not able to pick up kills with it or others are better then you with a weapon bungie doesn't need to take it out or make it useless.
Halo is not a game for bad players only. A good part of the halo community is somewhat good at the game, and these people like the br the way it is. I think the br spread is a good mix between a br for good players (h2 br) and a br for bad players (what you want). I do understand that halo can't be a game for good players, but that doesn't mean that it has to be a game for bad players.

Next time someone kills you with his oh so evil br think about why you hadn't a br or were not good enough with your br to kill him. It's not the br's fault.



thank god i am not alone, this man has the right idea :P


I'm sorry, but your opinion is that instead of fixing something unbalanced others should simply learn to exploit the lack of balance? That is pretty damn stupid (though all too common a thought).

Considering that the addition of the BR openned up the game for the casual market by making it so damn easy in the first place, the line of thought that the Halo is not only for bad players in defense of the BR is pretty weak. Halo CE was not as widely enjoyed as Halo2 or 3, many felt the learning curve was too strict, and Halo2 simplified it while Halo3 practically flattened it.


What do you me by flattened it?


The learning curve used to be high (CE) meaning you had to take some time to get to be a good shot and be proficient. It was shortened in Halo2 with the BR and the new weapon set because there was less skill required to be good at slayer (not arguing tactics). All you needed was a BR and be decently effective, if you paired it with a PP you had Halo for dummies, it was overly simple. Halo3 crushed the learning curve by making it even easier with equipment, splazer, and the return of the BR (hardly as nerfed as some claim).

Basically it's another way of saying the games have gotten progressivly easier to make them more accesible. The higher tier of players are still dangerous, but it is more because of their playstyles than what weapons they favor ( though the BR is a huge contributing factor).

  • 07.31.2009 3:17 PM PDT

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: The EAKLE
Posted by: Bullet _ Sponge
The problem is that all the other weapons are not versatile. The BR is great in many situation and it can easily adapt with the use of grenades and sometimes melee. Most other weapons have one use, melee range combat. Bungie needs to make all weapons useful again. Don't blame the BR for poor weapon balance. The M6D was way more powerful, killing in under a second but the game was balanced due to the other weapons being useful as well.
Buy dont forget that Halo CE and Halo 3 have major differences. There is dual wielding, more weapons, and more equipment to think about. Like i said in the OP, if SMGs get increased accuracy, they could become death machines. If plasma rifles get their stun back they would be the ultimate weapon with any UNSC weapon in a Dual Wield combo. If the AR gets too much more range it could easily kill with the help of a grenade or power drain much farther then it can now. It would take a lot of tweaking to find this balance, but i trust Bungie.


I am going to be very blunt in my post in explaining why choosing the br as a scapegoat (as to why halo 3 had no variety) is a very narrow minded way at looking at things.

Here are the major flaws in your reasoning for changing the BR.

First off you blame everything on the BR. You say the br renders all other weapons useless. You say the br cuts down on variety. You completely forgot how pointless it is to pick up almost any other weapon in the halo 3 sandbox even with one br on a map. If I start with an AR whats the point of picking up an smg or spiker. My Ar does the same job by firing in auto and with the same or better range. (plus better accuracy) Why pick up a plasma rifle? As long as I back up and shoot at the PR user i will get the kill. Why pick up a plasma pistol? The charged shot barely tracks enough or flys through the air with enough velocity to get a wary oppenent. (I can just use my AR instead)

Get my point.

You also complain about the br being able to shoot a sniper and knock him out of scope. If your playing on The Pit and the other team is spawn trapping you with a sniper rifle what are you going to do without a br. (duh your only other option is to camp) Btw heres a novel concept if your getting shot by a br when using the sniper (or another long range weapon) find some cover or new place to snipe.

The problem with your idea is that it would make for slower gameplay. Halo is loved and known for fast paced gameplay. It is not cod 4 where people die so fast that camping frequently occurs (just watch some vod of mlgs version of it) or gow 2 where it takes many upon many bullets to bring the oppenent down. The br (and weapons like it) is what makes halo, halo. By reducing damage and making it longer to kill a person at mid range you make the game slower paced. Because in every halo mid range is where MOST combat occurs.

Changing the Br to where it is not a br is not the answer.

  • 07.31.2009 3:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

What I do want is options, what I DON'T want, is the replacement of my BR55 or MD6 in Fall of Reach, yea, maybe bungie can throw in some new mid range weapon, but as long as it includes my favorite rifle and pistol that coexist as balanced mid range weapons, I will buy Halo Fall of Reach.

If it dosent, or it includes only the MD6, then will not buy the game.

  • 07.31.2009 3:51 PM PDT

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: SweetTRIX
Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: jonesy90000
Posted by: Rakata
God damn it.
The BR already got its rebalance. It's called br spread.
Just because you are not able to pick up kills with it or others are better then you with a weapon bungie doesn't need to take it out or make it useless.
Halo is not a game for bad players only. A good part of the halo community is somewhat good at the game, and these people like the br the way it is. I think the br spread is a good mix between a br for good players (h2 br) and a br for bad players (what you want). I do understand that halo can't be a game for good players, but that doesn't mean that it has to be a game for bad players.

Next time someone kills you with his oh so evil br think about why you hadn't a br or were not good enough with your br to kill him. It's not the br's fault.



thank god i am not alone, this man has the right idea :P


I'm sorry, but your opinion is that instead of fixing something unbalanced others should simply learn to exploit the lack of balance? That is pretty damn stupid (though all too common a thought).

Considering that the addition of the BR openned up the game for the casual market by making it so damn easy in the first place, the line of thought that the Halo is not only for bad players in defense of the BR is pretty weak. Halo CE was not as widely enjoyed as Halo2 or 3, many felt the learning curve was too strict, and Halo2 simplified it while Halo3 practically flattened it.


What do you me by flattened it?


The learning curve used to be high (CE) meaning you had to take some time to get to be a good shot and be proficient. It was shortened in Halo2 with the BR and the new weapon set because there was less skill required to be good at slayer (not arguing tactics). All you needed was a BR and be decently effective, if you paired it with a PP you had Halo for dummies, it was overly simple. Halo3 crushed the learning curve by making it even easier with equipment, splazer, and the return of the BR (hardly as nerfed as some claim).

Basically it's another way of saying the games have gotten progressivly easier to make them more accesible. The higher tier of players are still dangerous, but it is more because of their playstyles than what weapons they favor ( though the BR is a huge contributing factor).


Most people that played Ce that was their first time playing halo so of course the learning curve was harder. The learning curve is just as hard for someone just starting Halo 3.

  • 07.31.2009 3:51 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: cpt falcon911
The learning curve used to be high (CE) meaning you had to take some time to get to be a good shot and be proficient. It was shortened in Halo2 with the BR and the new weapon set because there was less skill required to be good at slayer (not arguing tactics). All you needed was a BR and be decently effective, if you paired it with a PP you had Halo for dummies, it was overly simple. Halo3 crushed the learning curve by making it even easier with equipment, splazer, and the return of the BR (hardly as nerfed as some claim).

Basically it's another way of saying the games have gotten progressivly easier to make them more accesible. The higher tier of players are still dangerous, but it is more because of their playstyles than what weapons they favor ( though the BR is a huge contributing factor).[/quote]

Most people that played Ce that was their first time playing halo so of course the learning curve was harder. The learning curve is just as hard for someone just starting Halo 3.


I must respectfully disagree, playing Halo2/3 for the first time is nothing like playing CE for the fist time. This is a given considering the different physics and removal of fall damage (once again, added simplicity). I certainly see what you are saying, and there is definately merit behind that point, it is a lot easier to be effective in the newer games than it was in CE.

If the games barely changed with each release, I would probably agree with you. But i've known too many people (personally) that were turned off by Halo CE's MP difficulty, who then turned around and became huge fans of Halo2/3 due to their ease of acclimation over the first title.

  • 07.31.2009 3:57 PM PDT

Walls........of..........text..........tooo............much.. ........to...........read............





*Cringe*

  • 07.31.2009 4:15 PM PDT

How about Bungie just make all games BR start? The AR is just not a good starting weapon. It loses to everything except another AR. The BR loses to the AR, Mauler, and shotgun close range. Loses to the Rockets and its canceled by the Carbine mid range. And loses to the sniper and beam rifle long range. I don't see why everyone is so annoyed by it.

To be honest, I have not seen one person who was in the 40s complain about the battle rifle. It is all these people who play social and screw around it customs all day. The simple fact is that more skilled players love the battle rifle. It requires skill to be good at and, if in the right hands, can take on almost any other weapon. I am truly sorry some people don't like the BR. But Bungie needs to stop catering to weaker players. They made the BR slower, added BR spread, and made it weaker, just to help weaker players from being dominated. Enough is Enough. The BR should be the starting weapon because you can defend yourself against any weapon. Every time you spawn you spawn on a leveled playing field. The AR beats the BR in its intended range. What else do you want from Bungie?

[Edited on 07.31.2009 4:49 PM PDT]

  • 07.31.2009 4:48 PM PDT

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!

The BR needs to be made single shot and should have its range increased. It needs to be more powerful, not less powerful, but it should also have less aim assist so it takes more skill (like the Halo 1 pistol).

In turn, remove dual wielding and beef up all weapons (like the Needler's power increase, but not so drastic) and make them more versatile (can be used at more ranges that just close/melee range), so the BR will not be overused or overpowered.

  • 07.31.2009 4:54 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
The BR needs to be made single shot and should have its range increased. It needs to be more powerful, not less powerful, but it should also have less aim assist so it takes more skill (like the Halo 1 pistol).

In turn, remove dual wielding and beef up all weapons (like the Needler's power increase, but not so drastic) and make them more versatile (can be used at more ranges that just close/melee range), so the BR will not be overused or overpowered.


I have no issue with this because at least as a single shot there is some skill needed to make it work well. Even if they just keep the Carbine and remove the BR I feel anyone would notice a drastic change in how most people play the game. There would be a very clear definition between who can actually aim and those who just use the BR cause it's easy to do so.

  • 07.31.2009 5:15 PM PDT

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: SweetTRIX
Posted by: cpt falcon911
The learning curve used to be high (CE) meaning you had to take some time to get to be a good shot and be proficient. It was shortened in Halo2 with the BR and the new weapon set because there was less skill required to be good at slayer (not arguing tactics). All you needed was a BR and be decently effective, if you paired it with a PP you had Halo for dummies, it was overly simple. Halo3 crushed the learning curve by making it even easier with equipment, splazer, and the return of the BR (hardly as nerfed as some claim).

Basically it's another way of saying the games have gotten progressivly easier to make them more accesible. The higher tier of players are still dangerous, but it is more because of their playstyles than what weapons they favor ( though the BR is a huge contributing factor).[/quote]

Most people that played Ce that was their first time playing halo so of course the learning curve was harder. The learning curve is just as hard for someone just starting Halo 3.


I must respectfully disagree, playing Halo2/3 for the first time is nothing like playing CE for the fist time. This is a given considering the different physics and removal of fall damage (once again, added simplicity). I certainly see what you are saying, and there is definately merit behind that point, it is a lot easier to be effective in the newer games than it was in CE.

If the games barely changed with each release, I would probably agree with you. But i've known too many people (personally) that were turned off by Halo CE's MP difficulty, who then turned around and became huge fans of Halo2/3 due to their ease of acclimation over the first title.


You gotta remember that with matchmaking you most of the time get to play people in your own skill set. Where as in Halo ce you could only lan with your friends and generally your friends were already good at the game.

  • 07.31.2009 5:32 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: cpt falcon911
Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: cpt falcon911
The learning curve used to be high (CE) meaning you had to take some time to get to be a good shot and be proficient. It was shortened in Halo2 with the BR and the new weapon set because there was less skill required to be good at slayer (not arguing tactics). All you needed was a BR and be decently effective, if you paired it with a PP you had Halo for dummies, it was overly simple. Halo3 crushed the learning curve by making it even easier with equipment, splazer, and the return of the BR (hardly as nerfed as some claim).

Basically it's another way of saying the games have gotten progressivly easier to make them more accesible. The higher tier of players are still dangerous, but it is more because of their playstyles than what weapons they favor ( though the BR is a huge contributing factor).[/quote]

Most people that played Ce that was their first time playing halo so of course the learning curve was harder. The learning curve is just as hard for someone just starting Halo 3.


I must respectfully disagree, playing Halo2/3 for the first time is nothing like playing CE for the fist time. This is a given considering the different physics and removal of fall damage (once again, added simplicity). I certainly see what you are saying, and there is definately merit behind that point, it is a lot easier to be effective in the newer games than it was in CE.

If the games barely changed with each release, I would probably agree with you. But i've known too many people (personally) that were turned off by Halo CE's MP difficulty, who then turned around and became huge fans of Halo2/3 due to their ease of acclimation over the first title.


You gotta remember that with matchmaking you most of the time get to play people in your own skill set. Where as in Halo ce you could only lan with your friends and generally your friends were already good at the game.


Again, I see your arguement but we use to hold LAN tournements down here and i've met over 300 gamers at some of these things of varying skill level. Besides in High School word of mouth traveled pretty quick (typical of Hawaii) so feedback was varied as well. What I said earlier still stands, you could spend all of five minutes looking through the Halo CE forums and see a ton of threads (albiet old ones) that share the opinion that the sequals were made easier.

  • 07.31.2009 5:59 PM PDT

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: SweetTRIX
Posted by: cpt falcon911
Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: cpt falcon911
The learning curve used to be high (CE) meaning you had to take some time to get to be a good shot and be proficient. It was shortened in Halo2 with the BR and the new weapon set because there was less skill required to be good at slayer (not arguing tactics). All you needed was a BR and be decently effective, if you paired it with a PP you had Halo for dummies, it was overly simple. Halo3 crushed the learning curve by making it even easier with equipment, splazer, and the return of the BR (hardly as nerfed as some claim).

Basically it's another way of saying the games have gotten progressivly easier to make them more accesible. The higher tier of players are still dangerous, but it is more because of their playstyles than what weapons they favor ( though the BR is a huge contributing factor).[/quote]

Most people that played Ce that was their first time playing halo so of course the learning curve was harder. The learning curve is just as hard for someone just starting Halo 3.


I must respectfully disagree, playing Halo2/3 for the first time is nothing like playing CE for the fist time. This is a given considering the different physics and removal of fall damage (once again, added simplicity). I certainly see what you are saying, and there is definately merit behind that point, it is a lot easier to be effective in the newer games than it was in CE.

If the games barely changed with each release, I would probably agree with you. But i've known too many people (personally) that were turned off by Halo CE's MP difficulty, who then turned around and became huge fans of Halo2/3 due to their ease of acclimation over the first title.


You gotta remember that with matchmaking you most of the time get to play people in your own skill set. Where as in Halo ce you could only lan with your friends and generally your friends were already good at the game.


Again, I see your arguement but we use to hold LAN tournements down here and i've met over 300 gamers at some of these things of varying skill level. Besides in High School word of mouth traveled pretty quick (typical of Hawaii) so feedback was varied as well. What I said earlier still stands, you could spend all of five minutes looking through the Halo CE forums and see a ton of threads (albiet old ones) that share the opinion that the sequals were made easier.


I see your point but 300 people is a lot different than 800,000 that play a day. What im trying to say is this happens in almost every game. Sequels most of the time are not loved by the people that played the first game of the series. Its like that with halo, gow, ssb and street fighter. And any change to the game is seen as bad.

Basically your coming from a biased point of view because your first game (of the halo series) was CE. Not saying the game was bad because even though I didnt play to the extent you did I still loved it just its impossible to say which game has a harder learning curve when the basics of the games are the same. And everyone builds on those basics when they move to another game.

  • 07.31.2009 6:12 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: cpt falcon911
I see your point but 300 people is a lot different than 800,000 that play a day. What im trying to say is this happens in almost every game. Sequels most of the time are not loved by the people that played the first game of the series. Its like that with halo, gow, ssb and street fighter. And any change to the game is seen as bad.

Basically your coming from a biased point of view because your first game (of the halo series) was CE. Not saying the game was bad because even though I didnt play to the extent you did I still loved it just its impossible to say which game has a harder learning curve when the basics of the games are the same. And everyone builds on those basics when they move to another game.


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, I've already said that it's not only my opinion, shoot even older Halo2 forums have said as much and it is a rather well known point of view. Feel however you will about it, there is no way that anyone can convince me that Halo2/3 is anywhere near as difficult to be decent at as CE was, not with the easy kills offered up in the sequals.

The same thing you said of my "biased point of view" could be said of yours, or anyone else that may have started with the sequals. I can say with confidence though that most of the old timers on these forums will agree with the opinion that CE was the harder game, in both campaign and MP.

  • 07.31.2009 6:26 PM PDT

-Check out my Geevee.com vids HERE-
-MONTAGE: drummer ZA19's First Montage-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GameBattles Team:

I read (and posted) in your last topic and I read this one...

I STILL don't understand why you think the BR is a "design flaw"

You say that the BR is a weapon that "can be used at all ranges and it ALWAYS does its job..." Well exactly... It's meant to be effective at all ranges. Take the shotgun, MEANT to be effective at CLOSE ranges... It ALWAYS does its job at its intended range. All the weapons do their job at their intended range. Just because a BR is effective at all ranges doesn't mean its a flaw. Its a certain class of weapon all its own, with the Carbine also.

BR-starts simply promote fast game-play and give everyone a decent chance against all weapons. Rather than an imbalance in game-play, they actually promote balance.

You must not forget that Halo is as skill-based as it is team-based... You DO have to aim and shoot. You must understand that at a high level of play, the BR is going to be used to great effect. ...As all the other weapons are. I can't tell you how many times I've been pelting a Sniper from a mid-range distance and gotten no-scoped in the face before getting the kill. The game is skill, no doubt.

Also, Sniper beating Shotgun at close range? Not uncommon. Sniper is meant to be effective at LONG ranges, but it can defeat a shotgun at CLOSE range... You might as well say the Sniper is a "design flaw" in Halo!

Just another random tid-bit... An SMG can even counter-act a Sniper at mid-long ranges... Simply aim and burst fire at the Sniper... Bullets will occasionally hit and "un-scope" the Sniper, giving you plenty of time to get away. I do it all the time. "Design flaw?" Nope. Their's a lot of quick thinking and skill involved in Halo... You can use some of the weapons to greater effect than you might think.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from... If anyone disagrees please feel free to quote me on something...

At a high level of play, all weapons are going to be used to GREAT effect in their intended ways, and the BR is no exception... It's intended to be USEFUL against all weapons and it DOMINATES the mid-range just as much as a Shotgun DOMINATES the close-range, just as much as Sniper DOMINATES long ranges... Sniper can dominate ANY range in the right-hands. That's where a little skill comes in. Design flaw? Not at all...

  • 07.31.2009 6:31 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: drummer ZA19
BR-starts simply promote fast game-play and give everyone a decent chance against all weapons. Rather than an imbalance in game-play, they actually promote balance.


This is only true if everyone likes to use the BR, but there are several that either are no good with it, or simply don't care for it. Preferencial issues aside BR starts streamline gameplay more than anything, for some it's an issue, for others not so much. Halo was always enjoyable to most people I know because of it's variety, it wasn't just a rifle game, but the BR has brought it there because the players found an easy way to be consistently effective and as such it is the most widely used weapon in MP.

All of that being said you could argue that it isn't balance, but being as it's the only weapon that surpasses it's own utility (it is effective at more than just mid-range) it is technically imbalanced, no matter how you or I or anyone else feel about it. Shoot, I use the damn thing whenever I can get one, but that doesn't mean it's balanced.

[Edited on 07.31.2009 7:52 PM PDT]

  • 07.31.2009 6:44 PM PDT