Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo Reach : A Balancing Act
  • Subject: Halo Reach : A Balancing Act
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Halo Reach : A Balancing Act

That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep the same Halo we all love, but we are just making it as fair as possible for everyone.

Posted by: AlbinoKola1
I have to disagree. You have great ideals but I think Halo is already balanced. Sure they can tweek a few things but Halo is pretty much fine the way it is. Oh, and on the melee section, we are genetically engineered soldiers who can punch through steel, I think that we can kill someone in one hit.

And about the Spartan strength thing, I agree. However, we are not using our fists. We are using our weapons. Most of the weapons are not designed to be bashed around; they would break. Therefore, we wouldn't hit at our maximum strength.

But I do like the melee strength as it is in Halo 3. What I do not like is the character displacement with weapons other than the sword. The 60 degree auto turning is also a problem. The lunge has to be reduced to what it was in Halo 1, so melees take more skill.

However, weapons like the spiker and the brute shot should be able to kill in 1 melee due to the fact that they have blades on them. But again, the auto aim and lunge would be like in Halo 1, so it is much harder to land a hit.

  • 10.10.2009 10:51 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!!

While I think you are spot on with certain ideas of yours, like the lack of bullet accuracy in precision weapons, I will however need to disagree in some parts.

This is my thoughts on this on-going, neverending topic...

The issue I find with Halo 3's balance and the reason why so many label the BR as "overpowered" is the fact that Bungie designed the game trying to bring more advantage to close-ranged weapons with a complete disregard of their ranges. They did this because Bungie is stuck on their idea that a close-ranged spray tool (as like the AR or SMG) is the answer for a starting weapon.

What Reach is in great need of as far as balance is a design that revolves around the mid-range game. In other words, you spawn with a range-capable weapon, which would allow you to shoot or fight off your spawn, and you can choose to upgrade your mid-ranged weapon and/or find a weapon more suitable for close-ranged scenarios. This would also require that your starting weapon be headshot-capable in order to balance to Power Weapons and any other major disadvantage that may be faced off your spawn until you are able to upgrade.

I believe this starting weapon should be similar in functionality to the M6G, but with near perfect accuracy. And, the weapons that should be looked at to pick up are mid-ranged weapons that kill slightly faster, like a 3-shot/4-shot-esque Pistol or single-shot Rifle; but, there should be more of these effective ranged-capable weapons.

As for the close-ranged weapons (which includes about 3/4ths of the weapons), they already perform as they should: as powerful up-close, in your face weaponry, where some are more powerful than others, but isn't to the point of "Rock, Paper, Scissors". I think some of 'these' weapons (AR, SMG, PR, Spiker, etc.) should have a considerable increase in range, however, and become useful in more situations; there is not reason at all that the PR or Spiker should have random shot trajectories.

This idea that all these close-ranged weapons should be used more (in regards to Halo 1,2,3 balance) and that is why the BR is "overpowered" is completely misguided. The lack of balance is due to them only being effective as a close-ranged weapon. How many FPSs can you say that everyone runs around with a Shotgun and has that as their main tool? Not many; maybe sometimes in COD4-like games, but even then it is uncommon. Halo is a run-n-gun Shooter where close-ranged use is situational only within close-quarters.

So let's shift the range of weapons more towards mid-range and decrease the amount of weapons only effective within close-quarters.

The big disagreement I have::
I don't agree that the mid-range, headshot-capable weapons should have lower damage (as you indicated with the Carbine). That would slow the pace of the gameplay, which I am heavily against, and what I fear could happen considering the current direction of the Halo series. If anything they should increase the pace and bring back the 3-shot.

The introduction of the BR and its burst functionality has done nothing but slow the pace. It made hitting your target almost automatic at most ranges which causes many players to have to retreat. The lowered damage as in the 4-shot only caused more retreat than fight. For example, in HaloCE, you could make a 180 and 3-shot someone who was shooting you in the back and win the fight; it encouraged fighting no matter what the situation. Some of that may be with the single-shot functionality which is hit or miss rather than progressive damage as with the spray weapons (includes H3 BR).

Also, lowering the damage would do nothing to its close-ranged effectiveness. That has to do with its headshot capabilities, since you can toss a Grenade and pop the head before your opponent knows what is going on. But, again, the BR makes that ability much easier, much much easier. Though, I do it all the time with the M6G Magnum, so it won't make a huge difference.


Well, that's my input. It's a little longer than I expected, so sorry for those with reading disabilities.

  • 10.10.2009 11:08 PM PDT

very well presented thread
thank you for clearing things up
I have one thing though....

1. I believe the melee system should be a halo 2 melee system but with a lunge limitation because ive seen more outrageous lunges in H3 then h2 or when there isnt even a lunge present when your 2 feet away (melee someone and it doesnt lunge)
H2 BXB was used alot because it took a few melees to hit or even kill someone.. i remember i melee someone 4 times before they died

  • 10.10.2009 11:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The game should be based around a skill oriented utalitarian weapon, thats what halo is.

No more spray melee weapons please.

  • 10.10.2009 11:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
The issue I find with Halo 3's balance and the reason why so many label the BR as "overpowered" is the fact that Bungie designed the game trying to bring more advantage to close-ranged weapons with a complete disregard of their ranges. They did this because Bungie is stuck on their idea that a close-ranged spray tool (as like the AR or SMG) is the answer for a starting weapon.

What Reach is in great need of as far as balance is a design that revolves around the mid-range game. In other words, you spawn with a range-capable weapon, which would allow you to shoot or fight off your spawn, and you can choose to upgrade your mid-ranged weapon and/or find a weapon more suitable for close-ranged scenarios. This would also require that your starting weapon be headshot-capable in order to balance to Power Weapons and any other major disadvantage that may be faced off your spawn until you are able to upgrade.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I think TW made a very good point about adding skill to all weapons, by allowing for more precision when pumped. I have no problem with creating weapons like this, reducing reticule size, etc. If you look at his ideas about how all weapons could be HS capable, I find it very interesting.

As you said, starting with a mid-range weapon can allow you survive and even thrive on a map (it doesn't boil down to rock paper scissors like it does now). However, if playing against another team who has better weapon selection and better aim, you'll lose. Each weapon should have a niche it fits into, providing it with some advantages/disadvantages. I don't think Bungie has balanced that right in this game. In H2 the BR was an all purpose weapon, and even in H3 people rarely put it down for closer combat. But now they've taken the precision away.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
I believe this starting weapon should be similar in functionality to the M6G, but with near perfect accuracy. And, the weapons that should be looked at to pick up are mid-ranged weapons that kill slightly faster, like a 3-shot/4-shot-esque Pistol or single-shot Rifle; but, there should be more of these effective ranged-capable weapons.
You're not talking about the starting weapon that should be like the M6G, right? It's the mid range weapon we would pick up? SO right now we'd start off with something similar to the kill speed of the BR (or slightly longer), but the alternative mid-range pickup would be like the M6G? I think that's a great idea. Start with a decent weapon, but not a super weapon.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
As for the close-ranged weapons (which includes about 3/4ths of the weapons), they already perform as they should: as powerful up-close, in your face weaponry, where some are more powerful than others, but isn't to the point of "Rock, Paper, Scissors". I think some of 'these' weapons (AR, SMG, PR, Spiker, etc.) should have a considerable increase in range, however, and become useful in more situations; there is not reason at all that the PR or Spiker should have random shot trajectories.
I don't think they're different enough to ever pick them up. Other than a PR paired with something else, why would you ever pick up a dual weapon? Even that isn't the best because of the disadvantage of no grenades or melee unless you drop a weapon.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
This idea that all these close-ranged weapons should be used more (in regards to Halo 1,2,3 balance) and that is why the BR is "overpowered" is completely misguided. The lack of balance is due to them only being effective as a close-ranged weapon. How many FPSs can you say that everyone runs around with a Shotgun and has that as their main tool? Not many; maybe sometimes in COD4-like games, but even then it is uncommon. Halo is a run-n-gun Shooter where close-ranged use is situational only within close-quarters.
I don't like CQ combat as much, and I think more mid range weapons need to be added to Halo. That being said, there really is no choice in close to mid range weapons. There is a huge difference between sword/shotgun/hammer, but when we extend the range a little, there isn't that much functional difference between weapons. The BR isn't overpowered because it makes CQ weapons obsolete. In fact, it should make them obsolete at mid range.

The problem is that the BR is still too useful at closer ranges to have its own niche. It only takes 4 shots, and the burst capability makes headshotting very easy. IMO, a weapon that is this easy to aim and get headshots with should have a little less power, making it more like 5 shots or even 6 (if you keep the HS capability). That prevents it from being good at close range and gives it some longer range capabilities. Then add an accurate carbine which takes 8-10 shots (as fast as you can fire), and you have a weapon that would be GREAT at medium to longer ranges, but would be hard in CQ because of the single fire capability, small reticule, and the fact that you have to land 8-10 shots with a headshot from this.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
So let's shift the range of weapons more towards mid-range and decrease the amount of weapons only effective within close-quarters.
I could agree with that completely. But I don't think they have to decrease short range options. They could make some interesting weapons with interesting pros and cons. But they DEFINITELY need to add more medium ranged, precision weapons.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
The big disagreement I have::
I don't agree that the mid-range, headshot-capable weapons should have lower damage (as you indicated with the Carbine). That would slow the pace of the gameplay, which I am heavily against, and what I fear could happen considering the current direction of the Halo series. If anything they should increase the pace and bring back the 3-shot.

I don't think ALL mid range weapons should have a slower kill rate, just the starting one and the BR if it is kept burst capable. I think the burst makes for cheap and random gameplay that detracts from skill.

That being said, I really like Halo's gameplay and how it is so different. When I play COD or other games like it, I get frustrated so fast with how someone just lays down in the grass and sprays bullets. I go behind a wall and get killed by ONE random bullet. Some guy is spraying an area and kills one guy, randomly killing me too. Yes, there are some skills in COD, and yes there is some random acts in Halo. However, overall I love how Halo gives you a chance to fight back against campers and surprise attacks. If the attacker isn't smart or plays things incorrectly, your skill can beat them. I don't think kill times should be 10 seconds (except for the plasma pistol :), but I like having time to react. On top of that, just because it takes your weapon 3 seconds to kill doesn't mean it has to. Add a grenade to it, a melee, or team fire and you have pretty quick gameplay as it is, but also with a chance to fight back.

I love the feel of Halo more than any other MP shooter. It takes a different skillset. It combines aiming, reactions, weapon selection, teamwork, and map control perfectly, and a large part of that is due to the health system. Yes, there could be some tweaks (shorter/longer shield regeneration, less shields more body or vice versa). But overall I like the general aspect of Halo taking a longer time to kill an opponent than other games.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
The introduction of the BR and its burst functionality has done nothing but slow the pace. It made hitting your target almost automatic at most ranges which causes many players to have to retreat. The lowered damage as in the 4-shot only caused more retreat than fight. For example, in HaloCE, you could make a 180 and 3-shot someone who was shooting you in the back and win the fight; it encouraged fighting no matter what the situation. Some of that may be with the single-shot functionality which is hit or miss rather than progressive damage as with the spray weapons (includes H3 BR).
It actually does slow the pace now. The H2 BR had a burst, but the spread was not substantial. The current burst/spread in H3 slows the pace unless you're relatively close. Yes, it does mean you will probably hit the target with at least one bullet (which is lame when it comes to random headshots), so I understand your point. But one BR bullet barely scratches you. And if you read my statements again, I'm not for all weapons to be lowered, just the BR, because a burst weapon shouldn't have that headshot capability in randomness. However, I'm all for a relatively quick kill weapon (8-10 carbine shots as fast as you can fire) at a range, provided your aiming skills are good - not reliant on luck.

On a final note, you have to remember that in H2, team firing was perfected. A 4 shot BR wasn't really a 4 shot BR, it was a 1 shot. When everyone fires on you, it's instant death, because that's what Halo is all about. Heck, it even happens in H3 against good players. You just think it's slow because it is 1v1. It is NOT slow at all in team games. Watch MLG sometime.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
Also, lowering the damage would do nothing to its close-ranged effectiveness. That has to do with its headshot capabilities, since you can toss a Grenade and pop the head before your opponent knows what is going on. But, again, the BR makes that ability much easier, much much easier. Though, I do it all the time with the M6G Magnum, so it won't make a huge difference.
If it took longer for a BR to kill you, it would give more time for the CQ weapons to kill it. I understand the grenade thing, but you can see my point by trying to traverse the middle of Guardian on a BR start game.

  • 10.11.2009 10:25 AM PDT

In response the post above this one. You guys only mentioned 2 or 3 weapons. What about the other weapons? The weapons you guys mentions makes every other weapon redundant.

I do not think that the BR, should be a starting weapon. A starting weapon has to be able to defend itself up to mid-range, and kill effectively at that range. It has to be adaptable, and it has to be versatile. (something I tried to do with the AR).

However, it is a general weapon that everyone has. This is where other weapons come into play. Other weapons allow players to specialize in a certain fighting style. the AR, PR, and spiker are just decent weapons. They can be 'specialized' if you burst or single shot. But they will not be as good as the specialized weapon.

Someone who likes CQ combat would pick a shotgun, or a mauler, etc. Whichever weapon in that niche that they like best, they would go for. In Halo 3, people only use the shotgun because it is better than every other weapon in that niche.

For those who like precision, and mid-range fighting, the BR or carbine would be best for them. Maybe even the AR, PR, and spiker. The BR has more ammo, but it takes more shots to kill than the carbine which has less ammo, but kills faster.

And then those who enjoy sniping, would pick up the snipers. However, if Bungie makes good night maps, players would face the difficult choice of picking up either a sniper (which has night vision), or the beam rifle, which has thermal vision (which is also effective during the day).


There are other weapons that I didn't mention, but I hope you guys get my point. Every weapon should be able to defend itself. And it's worth is determined mostly by the player, not the weapon itself.

  • 10.11.2009 11:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

I realize that only two or three weapons were mentioned, but that was largely because those weapons were given all the attributes to dominate the classes. Shotguns are largely better than all other CQ weapons, AR than dual wielded weapons, BR than carbine, etc. If we tweak those weapons, we open up room for other weapon niches. I definitely think we can change current weapons and add new weapons (particularly to the mid range, as the only option in H3 is really the BR with a few carbines). And why not have a close range HS weapon. Your idea to change the M6 (HCE pistol) to the same thing but without a scope would be great for a skilled CQ weapon.

So while we've only discussed a few, if you read everything, you'll see that I talk about opening up the range for other weapons and adding new weapons, as well as increasing the pros/cons for weapons and giving them a niche. If nobody ever wants to use a weapon, that tells you that 1) the weapon sucks and/or 2) there's one weapon that is so powerful everywhere that you don't ever need this weapon.

  • 10.11.2009 12:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Fifthderelict
And why not have a close range HS weapon. Your idea to change the M6 (HCE pistol) to the same thing but without a scope would be great for a skilled CQ weapon

I defiantly agree with this, and one idea real quick. it could be restricted to close quarters by having a damage fall off mechanic

Also i could see auto weapons having head shot working.

think about it, you lay on the trigger until the shield is gone then you move the rededicate to the head and let of a burst. so a skilled player will beat someone who just spays and prays, with an aim mechanic this would fine tune this tactic

[Edited on 10.11.2009 1:14 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 12:52 PM PDT

Posted by: Czar_CJ_Elm
I defiantly agree with this, and one idea real quick. it could be restricted to close quarters by having a damage fall off mechanic

Also i could see auto weapons having head shot working.

think about it, you lay on the trigger until the shield is gone then you move the rededicate to the head and let of a burst. so a skilled player will beat someone who just spays and prays, with an aim mechanic this would fine tune this tactic

That is what I think. Having all headshot capable weapons would severely increase the skill gap between those who go for the head, and those who don't. It would also speed up gameplay.

But my biggest fear is those few weapons overpowering all the other weapons outside of their "comfort zone."

Posted by: fifthderelicte
I realize that only two or three weapons were mentioned, but that was largely because those weapons were given all the attributes to dominate the classes. Shotguns are largely better than all other CQ weapons, AR than dual wielded weapons, BR than carbine, etc. If we tweak those weapons, we open up room for other weapon niches. I definitely think we can change current weapons and add new weapons (particularly to the mid range, as the only option in H3 is really the BR with a few carbines). And why not have a close range HS weapon. Your idea to change the M6 (HCE pistol) to the same thing but without a scope would be great for a skilled CQ weapon.

So while we've only discussed a few, if you read everything, you'll see that I talk about opening up the range for other weapons and adding new weapons, as well as increasing the pros/cons for weapons and giving them a niche. If nobody ever wants to use a weapon, that tells you that 1) the weapon sucks and/or 2) there's one weapon that is so powerful everywhere that you don't ever need this weapon.


[Edited on 10.11.2009 2:49 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 2:45 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Legendary Member

Posted by: BTE
Posted by: Xharpan
it doese'nt look nextgen , looks good but not nextgen
If by next-gen you mean crappy, dark and colorless, I agree. It doesnt look next-gen at all.

Posted by: AlbinoKola1
Oh, and on the melee section, we are genetically engineered soldiers who can punch through steel, I think that we can kill someone in one hit.
Only problem is that you are fighting against other super soldiers. Sure, if you would be fighting humans i guess that wouldn't be a problem but that doesn't seem to be the case.

  • 10.11.2009 2:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Czar_CJ_Elm
Fifthderelict
And why not have a close range HS weapon. Your idea to change the M6 (HCE pistol) to the same thing but without a scope would be great for a skilled CQ weapon

I defiantly agree with this, and one idea real quick. it could be restricted to close quarters by having a damage fall off mechanic

Also i could see auto weapons having head shot working.

think about it, you lay on the trigger until the shield is gone then you move the rededicate to the head and let of a burst. so a skilled player will beat someone who just spays and prays, with an aim mechanic this would fine tune this tactic

I have since agreed that HS capable CQ weapons (actually all weapons) is a good idea, following TW's standards (when fullly auto fired, some bullets land outside the reticule which aren't counted towards headshots). I also suggested the M6 pistol without a scope as a great alternative to a HS (if the system is kept the same for Reach) capable, quick kill, close range weapon. They may, however, need to take away dual wieldability for that.

As far as your idea for a damage falloff range for certain weapons, I think that is a GREAT idea. Bungie has something like that now, it's just that the bullets completely disappear all of a sudden, rather than gently being reduced in damage of distances.

And yes, I think this would allow for a bigger skill gap (what you say in your last paragraph). I have been converted.

  • 10.11.2009 3:31 PM PDT

I don't think different weapons should take a different # of
Melee's to kill someone because the SPARTAN is swinging the weapon
the same speed every time and they are really strong

So it just kills anyone without a shield but some weapons in H3
have a stronger melee like the Brute Shot

  • 10.11.2009 3:35 PM PDT

This thread has good ideas, but I disagree with some of your points.

First, with Halo's story, the BR will most likely not be in reach, and hopefully the pistol will be brought back. In that sense, the headshot insta-kill when no shields should not be taken out. Actually, the damage should be upped (or health lowered) to speed the game up a bit. Right now, it can be extremely difficult to kill someone at long range without a long range power weapon. With faster killing, people would be forced to work on positioning as well as better aim.

Second, auto aim should be reduced if not completely taken out. Right now, the BR is so powerful because it is easy to center over the head for people with little skill. If the kills were quicker, the aim assist might make the game a "get the first shot" type thing. With no aim assist, it would all be down to aiming skill. While this may be difficult on a controller, it would force people to really learn aiming, and not just work on strategy. A 3 headshot kill mid range weapon would be create a better, more competitive shooter.

Next, power weapons. These currently play a huge role in Halo 3, but with greater damage, it will make them much more situational and positioning based. For example, a sniper could be a one shot kill, but have the speed balanced so a skilled aimer could take it down with a pistol. A sniper should be able to take two shots before the third pistol shot. Rockets are a bigger problem. It might be beneficial to make rockets a one shot per clip weapon, therefore allowing a team to take down someone rushing with rockets, while still leaving room for the rocket player to frag someone. As for CQ weapons, the shotgun as it is right now would be decent, except not allowing it to melee cancel.

Now I like your point about melees. This would eliminate the 2 shot-beatdown trade going on right now. I would especially like to see lunges removed/reduced, as they just break the game IMO.

[Edited on 10.11.2009 4:06 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 4:04 PM PDT

I would like to invite you to the most active group there is, Black Water Ops. Boasting over 4000 members this is one of the fastest growing groups and proven to be one of the most active b.net groups. An amazing experience awaits you with weekly game nights, photo contests, and forging contests. This is one decision you won't regret. Welcome to the family!

With the whole melee thing, I'm pretty sure the UNSC and the Covenant have thought through the amount of power elites and Spartans can put out, so they would make their weapons able to take that much damage.

And headshots should have an advantage, but they shouldn't be uber-easy, only something a some-what skilled player would do.

  • 10.11.2009 4:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: CaKeMONST3R
I don't think different weapons should take a different # of
Melee's to kill someone because the SPARTAN is swinging the weapon
the same speed every time and they are really strong

So it just kills anyone without a shield but some weapons in H3
have a stronger melee like the Brute Shot


Someone already answered that above, but I'll repeat it. If a SPARTAN is hitting, you have to remember you also have a SPARTAN taking the hit. On top of that, there are MANY things that aren't too realistic, but work in the game to balance out gameplay.

  • 10.11.2009 5:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto


But my biggest fear is those few weapons overpowering all the other weapons outside of their "comfort zone."

[.[/quote]


OK I see your point there but adjusting the shield damage could balance it, which dose not matter as much because 90% of the time in relatively close quarters it dose not matter what weapon you have. it how you use your grenades to drop the shields to get the head shot.

[Edited on 10.11.2009 5:12 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 5:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: dynamik123
First, with Halo's story, the BR will most likely not be in reach, and hopefully the pistol will be brought back. In that sense, the headshot insta-kill when no shields should not be taken out.

From what I understand, the BR could be in Reach because it was out before it, or at least at the same time. I'm not about taking out HS weapons, but rather tweaking the BR because it's too easy of a HS weapon with its burst.

Posted by: dynamik123
Actually, the damage should be upped (or health lowered) to speed the game up a bit. Right now, it can be extremely difficult to kill someone at long range without a long range power weapon. With faster killing, people would be forced to work on positioning as well as better aim.


I disagree with you. Sure, it might take 2 1/2 seconds to kill someone, but that's what's great about Halo. You can't just hide in a corner and be guaranteed a win by spraying a few bullets in the general direction of your opponent. Shields add in a TON of strategy and skill.

That being said, while it takes considerably longer to kill someone in Halo, you can produce a kill nearly instantaneously. This is what gives Halo such a great skill gap. In COD and other games like it, it's almost always an instant kill if you actually hit the person with 1-3 bullets. Milliseconds. In Halo, you can kill with the same speed, but you can also take considerably longer if you miss shots and have to reload or wait between bursts. You actually have to be good to kill people.

For example, if you've ever actually played a good team, you find that you can die fairly quickly if you make the wrong move. Halo encourages tactics, weapon selection, skillful aiming, etc. If I could 4 shot you but I have a grenade, why not lead with a nade and HS you for an instakill? If I have three other teammates who I can communicate with, why not all shoot at the same target and instakill? I can't tell you how powerful teamwork and tactics are in Halo. You're focused on 1v1 battles, but Halo is much more about the teamwork and tactics. If we implemented your idea, it would be boring and drop the skill curve. Spray a few bullets and get a kill.

Posted by: dynamik123
Second, auto aim should be reduced if not completely taken out. Right now, the BR is so powerful because it is easy to center over the head for people with little skill. If the kills were quicker, the aim assist might make the game a "get the first shot" type thing. With no aim assist, it would all be down to aiming skill. While this may be difficult on a controller, it would force people to really learn aiming, and not just work on strategy. A 3 headshot kill mid range weapon would be create a better, more competitive shooter.
I agree. I'm all about increasing the skill gap. However, I do disagree that the BR is all powerful. It's actually pretty weak unless you're relatively close. The random spread discourages skill, and a HS capable burst weapon allows for lucky or unskilled kills to unshielded opponents. So I agree/disagree at the same time. I also disagree with you about the quicker kills, though I do see your point. If autoaim is taken down, it would be possible to introduce a quick kill weapon, but that weapon would only be effective if you were very skilled. But I definitely agree on the autoaim.

Posted by: dynamik123
Next, power weapons. These currently play a huge role in Halo 3, but with greater damage, it will make them much more situational and positioning based. For example, a sniper could be a one shot kill, but have the speed balanced so a skilled aimer could take it down with a pistol. A sniper should be able to take two shots before the third pistol shot. Rockets are a bigger problem. It might be beneficial to make rockets a one shot per clip weapon, therefore allowing a team to take down someone rushing with rockets, while still leaving room for the rocket player to frag someone. As for CQ weapons, the shotgun as it is right now would be decent, except not allowing it to melee cancel.
I like making the rocket one shot per clip. Two is just a little too much. You should have to make your shots count. To add to your sniper comment, I really think the sniper should have to lead shots on running targets like it did in H1. That adds skill considerably.

Posted by: dynamik123
Now I like your point about melees. This would eliminate the 2 shot-beatdown trade going on right now. I would especially like to see lunges removed/reduced, as they just break the game IMO.
I definitely think they should reduce or take out the lunges (other than for the sword and maybe the hammer).

Thanks for your comments!

[Edited on 10.11.2009 5:23 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 5:22 PM PDT

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


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

I've skimmed your post.

I really like your goal, but i dont think the way your going about it would work too well.

Personally, i think the BR shouldnt be changed at all. The only difference would be that it would appear less often on medium maps, and rarely on small maps.

The AR would become more focused on CQB. It's range wouldnt change (it's already pretty dang short). It would gain an exta 16 shots to it's clip (making 48 total so it would have the same KPM as a Br.) and would be stronger at CQB. The BR would dominate at long range and the AR at close range.

A new weapon would be added to fill the gap between them. It would be fully automatic, but would have a cone of fire than increases faster than an AR. It would also have a 1.5X scope. This weapon would always be a starting weapon. It would be the secondary with AR primary on small maps, and BR primary on large maps. On some maps it would be the only starting weapon.

The weapons accuracy when burst-fired would allow players to defend themselves on spawns, fixing the issue with AR starts in H3. It would not be as long range as a BR though, so it wouldn't make the BR useless. It's full auto would allow it to be useful in CQB, but it is weaker than the AR, so the AR retains it's niche as the dominate CQB weapon.

This new weapon (im going to call it the Combat Rifle for now) would rarely be a dominate weapon. It would only serve the purpose of making players able to fight as soon as they spawn.

Along with the combat Rifle, other weapons would be upgraded. The Plasma Rifles would be made single wield again. They would get "plasma stun" back and would do slightly more damage against un-shielded opponents than it does in H3.

The brute-Rifle would be added again. It would act as the covenant counter to the Combat Rifle. Instead of a scope, however, it would have slight plasma stun.

  • 10.11.2009 5:29 PM PDT

Plekpedia - The most epic site in the history of ever.

My opinion:

It started out okay-ish, then got bad, then got very bad, then got a tad bit better, then got horrible, then as it reached the bold quotes, got so incredibly bad and horrible, that it was sad.

  • 10.11.2009 5:39 PM PDT

I see where you're coming from on quicker kills somewhat destroying teamwork. However, I am not saying such fast kills as Counter Strike or Call of Duty, more so, Halo 1, with 3 pistol headshots. And second, quicker kills will not promote shooting in the general direction of the opponent and camping. Rather, they would promote larger awareness and critical decision making. Kills would be faster, but shot speed would not be increased. Just picture a 3-burst BR battle instead of 4. The game would still play similarly, but it would increase the pace a bit.

Also, I forgot another point, recoil. This would make aiming even more skill based, where one would have to realign their shot every time. This way, there would be a bit more emphasis on the individual's skill level, instead of every decent player having near perfect shots and having to rely solely on teamwork and positioning. Adding more individual skill would not take away from teamwork, but would add a larger skill gap.

[Edited on 10.11.2009 5:57 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 5:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: dynamik123
I see where you're coming from on quicker kills somewhat destroying teamwork. However, I am not saying such fast kills as Counter Strike or Call of Duty, more so, Halo 1, with 3 pistol headshots. And second, quicker kills will not promote shooting in the general direction of the opponent and camping. Rather, they would promote larger awareness and critical decision making. Kills would be faster, but shot speed would not be increased. Just picture a 3-burst BR battle instead of 4. The game would still play similarly, but it would increase the pace a bit.

Also, I forgot another point, recoil. This would make aiming even more skill based, where one would have to realign their shot every time. This way, there would be a bit more emphasis on the individual's skill level, instead of every decent player having near perfect shots and having to rely solely on teamwork and positioning. Adding more individual skill would not take away from teamwork, but would add a larger skill gap.


I do like the pace of SWAT, though I think the BR kills it.

I would agree with you on the pace thing provided with the following:

1. Automatic weapons had damage drop off or horrendous accuracy to prevent them from being dominant outside of fairly close range

2. Autoaim was decreased or taken out so it did take skill to hit

3. Recoil, as you stated

4. The BR should not be a 3 shot. That should be reserved for a single fire weapon so you don't get lucky on the burst. And actually, I'd like for a quick kill weapon that takes more like 6-7 shots, but can be fired with a high rate of fire. The more bullets you have to land, the more skilled and consistent you have to be.

I could definitely see a quicker paced Halo IF they added some skill back into it. That being said, I do like Halo the way it is now for the team aspect. While this would remain in a quicker kill Halo, I think that would be de-emphasized a little. But I think we could have the best of both worlds if Bungie would create a hardcore mode or something where you had less shields as opposed to no shields.

[Edited on 10.11.2009 6:25 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 6:15 PM PDT

I like the idea of a 6-7 shot faster mid-range weapon. Do the speed and mechanics of the ODST Pistol symbolize that well? Obviously we can't comment on the damage because there is no PvP, but I believe it was a step forward for mid-range weapons. However, having the carbine in ODST was unnecessary, as with no recoil and increased damage on campaign enemies, it easily dominated.

[Edited on 10.11.2009 7:03 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 6:59 PM PDT

I just want to point out that the key to making good mid range weapons is not to slap a scope on and say, "there's you mid range gun, its all k now." The way to add more mid range weapons is to decrease the reticule size/spread. Why should a pistol have a scope?

The problem with Halo is that very few weapons are specialized. Those that are almost worthless because the more generic gun, the BR, is a lot more effective since it can do everything.

The starting weapon should be automatic. Those are the easiest to understand for players, and it doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand how to defend yourself.

Now, just because a weapon is automatic, does not mean that it has to be 2D. The way to add depth to weapons is to give them a headshot capability, and a lot of accuracy boost when burst fired and single shotted. This in itself creates a skill gap between those players who just spray, and those who burst fire and go for the head.

Now the BR should be semi automatic, and shoot as fast as you pull the trigger.* The reticule should be made smaller (a little larger than the snipers), and scope a little more powerful. This makes it more a mid-long range weapon, and well, specializes it. No longer can you outgun a shotgun, AR, SMG at close range.**

The whole system should reward players not on the gun they have,*** but on the players proficiency with their weapon of choice.

*There is a firing rate cap, but really high, like 10 rounds a second
**It still can, but only if you are really proficient with it
***The weapon is still a determining factor, but not such a large one any more

  • 10.11.2009 9:27 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: fifthderelicte

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
I believe this starting weapon should be similar in functionality to the M6G, but with near perfect accuracy. And, the weapons that should be looked at to pick up are mid-ranged weapons that kill slightly faster, like a 3-shot/4-shot-esque Pistol or single-shot Rifle; but, there should be more of these effective ranged-capable weapons.
You're not talking about the starting weapon that should be like the M6G, right? It's the mid range weapon we would pick up? SO right now we'd start off with something similar to the kill speed of the BR (or slightly longer), but the alternative mid-range pickup would be like the M6G? I think that's a great idea. Start with a decent weapon, but not a super weapon.
Just to make sure we are clear, the M6G Magnum is the Halo 3 Magnum. But, yeah, I believe we should start off with a weapon that kills in 4-5 shot speed similar to the current BR or M6G. Then, you could upgrade your mid-ranged weapon to a 3-4 shot speed.

This is what I think is the best starting set-up for any competitive-style shooter like Halo...

Primary: an accurate Pistol with slow RoF, single-shot fire, and a slight zoom (or no zoom).
Secondary: an accuracy controlled Rifle with rapid RoF, automatic fire, and a slight zoom. Basically, the width of the spread would be controlled by the user's RoF that is applied; the faster you pull the trigger or hold the trigger the less accurate it gets, but is extremely accurate on the first few bullets giving it accurate shots when burst fired slow enough.

Both could be headshot-capable, but not necessarily needed for the Rifle. One would be a fun precision weapon, while the other would be easier for the lesser skilled. Both would kill in similar speeds and be balanced, however the Pistol, since it is hit or miss, would reward more skillful players for aiming precise and increase the skill gap.


Have you ever played Red Faction:Guerrilla? Every weapon deals more damage to the head. Despite a lack of range in some weapons, it has an extremely enjoyable weapon set (with exception of a few nooby explosives). The Assault Rifle is a mid-ranged weapon that is easy to use and is the most-used in Default weapon sets; for someone like me who loves precision I find the weapon pretty fun to use still. There is also a Pistol that kills in 3-shots (with 2 headshots I think) but is actually quite hard to use. Then, there is the Guass Rifle which kills in 2-shots with headshots.

Of course there are more balanced games out there, like Shadowrun or Cellfactor:PW, but for bringing in both Casuals and Competitives, Red Faction:G does that well I believe, better than Halo 3 IMO (of course the MLG community is there, but I think Halo 3 splits them up, rather RFG joins them together).

  • 10.11.2009 10:21 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!!

I'd like for a quick kill weapon that takes more like 6-7 shots, but can be fired with a high rate of fireThis is the problem I have with increasing the RoF. A slow RoF rewards players for having precise timing and aiming, rather a fast RoF allows you to still be successful with missed shots. One missed shot with the BR and you are probably going to die (that is also the reason why "randomness" is complained more with the BR than any other weapon). One missed shot with the Carbine (or you could even use the AR) and it isn't the end of the world cause you can just fire another quick bullet.

  • 10.11.2009 10:37 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4