- fifthderelicte
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
- gamertag: BJRSCJ
- user homepage:
Posted by: BTE
Great post.
Personally the main problem I ever faced on Halo 2 is that once I got to 30, it was nearly impossible (alone, maybe with a group things were different) to level up past that due to the great number of modders and standbyers. The highest level I got was 34 and I lost it quickly thanks to what I mentioned above, i managed to get my level back to 32 and just quit the game. My best friend had the same problem with the game. You could argue that Halo 3 has a flawed ranking system when compared to Halo 2 but when you think about it, I think Bungie noticed that getting to level 50 on Halo 2 was nearly impossible so they made it easier to get a higher level on Halo 3. I don't think H2's system was perfect. In fact, there were a lot of flaws with it. That being said, H3 definitely goes too far the other way.
Posted by: BTE
As for how competitive a game is, and how much does luck play a part on an encounter, I used to play WoW and on that game luck was more of a factor than it is in Halo 3. But even if you managed to get really lucky, that all wouldn't matter in the long run because skill would triumph over luck (im talking about same classes, same equipment and everything). In Halo, another thing (which you did not mention, was the fact that in 2, there was a horrible auto aim and bullet magnetism. Doesn't that add up to how inconsistent the game itself was? There seems to be some kind of auto aim in Halo 3 but is much lower than on Halo 2. I agree. The better players will usually win. That being said, I believe that Bungie could make a game that caters to both fans. I think a large part of that is the ranking system, but weapons do play a part in that. But I really do agree with you that the best players still do win.
Posted by: BTE
You also comment on the BR, its spread and how luck came into play. Since this is another BR thread lets talk about the weapon. I agree that the weapon could be considered inconsistent, but aren't automatic and burst weapons like that? Also, why is it that they don't use the Carbine then? The Carbine's overall design (as a weapon) is a lot better than the BR and it is much more consistent. You miss your shot, and you are screwed. You don't get 2 other bullets to make up for your bad aiming. Very similar to the old Halo:CE pistol. Wouldn't you agree with me then that its bogus for them to keep the BR as it is when they already have a weapon that is superior to it (as far as gameplay mechanics go)? Same goes for these MLG kids that say: "the BR is more competitive". I COMPLETELY agree. I hate the BR. I am pro carbine all the way. The BR shouldn't be more accurate because the headshots are already too easy to get. I've written about this a million times, so check out this link and the quote below from another thread:
Posted by: fifthderelicte
1. Being a burst weapon is fine. Heck, we have automatic weapons in Halo. The problem with this burst weapon, however, is that it's headshot capable. Think about SWAT and how easy it is to get headshots on unshielded people as opposed to using a single magnum or carbine. BRs allow you to swipe shoot and it makes headshotting take 0 skill.
2. But what about all those times you're in an epic battle with someone because you can't get the headshot at the range you're at? Doesn't that mean it does take aim? Not at all. Just think about all the complaints about the BR's accuracy. It is random at all but the closest medium range situations (it starts to go at a distance from gold to in front of snipe on guardian). This randomness makes for imprecise battles and can cause the victor not to be the one with the most skill, but the one who got the lucky break.
3. Of course a lot of weapons work that way, and we don't want a sniper, right? Well, how many snipers take 12 bullets to kill? The BR and carbine are both intended to be medium/medium-long weapons. When you make the core weaponset (those weapons which control the map the best, but aren't power weapons - so you can find them more readily)random, it means that you are randomizing the most used guns in the game. When you do that, it means you downplay skill. So how can you make a core weapon be just that - a great map controlling weapon - but one that is not a sniper and overpowered? I'll tell you.
What needs to be done for a headshot capable, core weapon, is to not have burst, first of all. When that's completed, the accuracy needs to be bumped up to almost perfect. On top of that, the zoom may be toned down just a bit, or maybe kept the same. Think about how hard it would be to headshot someone across standoff, even if the BR accuracy was almost perfect. The lack of zoom on the reticule makes it harder to hit targets because you're not zoomed in. The same thing applies to any of you hunters out there. You know what I'm talking about, when you move from your 22 with the dinky scope to your 243 with the massive scope.
This will allow the BR to be a skilled, accurate core weapon, but it will actually make it harder to get headshots at range (you can't get lucky with a random burst), but doable with skill. This not only makes the gameplay much better and more consistent, but it makes the skill gap larger too, which would be great. Compare the amount of those in the 40s from H3 to H2. It's gross.
4. Finally, if you still think the BR would be like a sniper, think about this. If the BR were made to be single fire, you would then technically need 12 bullets to kill. I think that's a little too much, and should either bump up the rate of fire, or move it down to 8 shots to kill (same as carbine). The big thing with these tweaks are to play with the power and rate of fire to make the BR kill in the amount of time you want it to be able to kill (around the time it kills now). With this and the single shot implemented, you have to skillfully land 8-12 different shots, rather than allow the burst to help you get lucky (or unlucky) at times.
Yes, that sounds similar to the carbine, and it is. However, what weapons don't have clones? Also, you could manipulate the rate of fire and/or power to make it kill in less/more shots but with the same speed, making it feel different than the carbine. Or, just take away the HS capability, bump up the power a little (so it takes 6 bursts or so to kill to the body) and now you have a medium ranged weapon that would suck at CQ, but still pings snipers out at medium ranges and can kill. It wouldn't be as accurate as the carbine, giving the carbine its own little niche.
5. I think the BR, and other long range weapons should have decreased melee damage, forcing them to play at their distances rather than being a jack of all trades (melee - burst to head = death). This would create a more balanced BR and allow for more tactical thinking in terms of weapon selection.
As it stands, the current BR is very used because it's a core weapon, it's powerful, and it's prevalent. However, it is a random, lucky, and easy weapon (in terms of HS anyway). They need to fix it to be a fine tuned, sklled, consistent weapon that will increase the skill gap. We need a core weapon, but it should not be the BR as it is now.