Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: A gun they should not carry over to Reach
  • Subject: A gun they should not carry over to Reach
Subject: A gun they should not carry over to Reach
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I kind of feel that the concept of certain weapons should definitely stay, but that perhaps they should just make earlier models that look and perform somewhat differently. The constant redundancy of some of these weapons throughout the series kind of gives me a headache.

  • 11.01.2009 3:41 PM PDT

I would say the BR because it starts flame wars. I would much rather see a Halo: CE type pistol again. Or at least lower the power of it a little.

But if I cant choose the BR the Flamethrower, I mean why do we even have it if its only on one map?

[Edited on 11.01.2009 3:49 PM PST]

  • 11.01.2009 3:48 PM PDT

XBL Gamertag: FunnyWhytBoi
Also known as DuskSoul on GameFAQs.

Don't take out the flamethrower. But make the flames travel faster, so team killing and suiciding isn't an issue.

Honestly, I don't want any weapons taken out. The only other weapon I have a problem with is the Spiker, and all that needs is an intense damage boost and it'll be a great weapon.

  • 11.01.2009 3:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Canada is America done right

the silenced pistol.
but they should bring back the halo ce pistol because it was on the pillar of autumn and therefor it should be on reach.
the brute shot wouldn't make much sense to have unless they have brutes in which case it should be the halo 2 version. but i doubt it, it was a fleet of elites who attacked no brutes.

all in all have all the weapons from halo ce with a couple extras that may not have been seen in the later titles

  • 11.01.2009 3:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Meteor78
I don't want the flamethower. You never use it except for on one map, and whoever picks it up dies fast.
wait what then explain why i got a killing frenzy with a flame thrower in matchmakeing o.O you just got to know how to use it

but NO BR

  • 11.01.2009 4:27 PM PDT

there are not any brute weapons in the game

  • 11.01.2009 4:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.

Posted by: MichaelYEAHH
Posted by: master piraka
The BR. Seriously. It's not because I hate the gun, I hate the arrogant pricks who use it and want to see them cry..

Now FOR REAL? The flamethrower. The damn thing's a team kill machine. They either need to fix it, or cut it.

lol wow both of your suggestions are horrid. i dont even need to say why

but i think ALL the weapons should be carried over. more variety = more awesomeness :D



Well, here's half of bungie's problem right here.

The sooner they can drop this mentallity, the soomer their games can stop failing.
Maybe the flamethrower could work more like Gears 2's flamethrower. You burn for less time, so grazing the flame doesn't mean an instant death.

[Edited on 11.01.2009 4:57 PM PST]

  • 11.01.2009 4:51 PM PDT

Posted by: Grunt Returns
Spiker. It isn't significant in any way other than the fact that idea is cool. It just wasn't executed well and really isn't any fun to use

Agreed.

  • 11.01.2009 6:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Your friendly and eccentric Sangheili forum-poster. :)

You want to know what I find funny? The OP advised against saying ARs and BRs as it would start a flame war, yet people have put different weapons down and it's started flame wars anyway. Ah well, I'll go for one, the Missile Pod. Seriously, bring back lock on the Rocket Launcher and don't keep putting Rocket Launchers down on every single map. At the moment, the Rocket Launcher doesn't feel like an anti vehicle weapon since it's absent from most vehicle based maps and is present on maps that have no vehicles.

  • 11.01.2009 6:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Why are you reading my signature? Who actually opens these things and reads them!

And as always, SEND ME A PM. Please. Or really bad things will happen to you.

I feel like removing weapons is a bad idea. Change the weapon placement not the weapons.

  • 11.01.2009 6:14 PM PDT

Proud member for 4 years, and i hope many more.

B.net birthday 11.21.08

"Damn Canadians and their poppy things!"

Posted by: Nicke Sw3
Posted by: hadlermaster
Spartan Laser.

OmfgWtF !?!?!1!? n0T maH LAZ4R !!!!1! I want Mah L4ZAR!!

  • 11.01.2009 6:15 PM PDT

919263146451025311493204END
1119996204135253422342538320242END
10234254236384412425512455175END
919525486131742032515267END

Posted by: HundredJono
The weak and pathetic Spiker

You clearly have never seen B.U.N.G.L.E.

  • 11.01.2009 6:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag: F0RAK
  • user homepage:

i think the splaser should have a different firing mechanism. I think it should not charge, but rather be like a more powerful sentinel beam with continuous damage.

  • 11.01.2009 6:18 PM PDT

Posted by: Meteor78
I don't want the flamethower. You never use it except for on one map, and whoever picks it up dies fast.

actually every time i play construct i average over 10kills per game of construct it is not a bad weapon but any team mates who are dum enough to walk into you while you are making roasted chicken is there falt the get killed

  • 11.01.2009 6:19 PM PDT

Posted by: bry648 legend
Posted by: Meteor78
I don't want the flamethower. You never use it except for on one map, and whoever picks it up dies fast.
wait what then explain why i got a killing frenzy with a flame thrower in matchmakeing o.O you just got to know how to use it

but NO BR

FINALLY someone gets it that it takes skill to use my guess you guys who hate it run out with it and get killed imidiatly

  • 11.01.2009 6:30 PM PDT

Posted by: Forak78
i think the splaser should have a different firing mechanism. I think it should not charge, but rather be like a more powerful sentinel beam with continuous damage.

That would be more than overkill... Have you ever even used the sentinal beam in a regular game? It kills in a few seconds of continuous fire. Now if you make that stronger it will give you instant kills on infantry and a few seconds of directed fire to take out a vehicle.

Personally I think that either a) the spartan laser should be removed or b) it should be given enough power to kill anything in one shot, but only give it enough charge for one or maybe two shots. That way it could take out a few vehicles that were a real threat, but it would actually have to be used wisely instead of kids shooting randomly.

I agree with the fact that we need more trip mines and anti-vehicle weapons that are not only not overpowered but also must be used wisely enough to take out vehicles. One thing that I've found fun is to throw a grav lift in front of myself, crouch, and watch as the {insert name of vehicle here} goes flying over and I board it from underneath.

Also, I love using the spiker in Firefight in ODST, but that's just my opinion.

Edit: Did anyone read anything in the OP other than to say what weapon should be removed? I'm counting at least 10 'remove the BR' posts.

[Edited on 11.01.2009 6:43 PM PST]

  • 11.01.2009 6:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: MJJMS
  • user homepage:

I <3 Nicole Fergusson

the weapons they should get rid of are all the new weapons introduced to the franchise after halo 1.

Why?

because they were never in the Halo Reach book. What they should bring is the silenced AR from the book, with full metal jacked bullets, just like from the book. They should also put in the sniper rifle with now scope, just like the book. They should also bring some covert missions that were explained from the book.

Ex:
they infiltrate a rebel base disguised as workers and then all hell breaks loose.
or when they entered a city through the city sewers and then they emerged in a museum and a hunter blows that spartans arm off.

That would all be awesome!!

  • 11.01.2009 6:35 PM PDT

In my opinion (in no particular order):

1) Trip Mine: Needs to be removed or replaced with the Lotus or C-7 or something of that nature. At the moment it is basically a glowing pizza which is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

2) Mauler: I see this one best fit for removal. Beyond a few feet, it is a peashooter, and when in close, it is a cheap kill weapon.

3) Shotgun: At the moment I think the shotgun is very unbalanced. At more than a few feet, it is just as useless as the mauler, but at close range, it is very overpowered. In my opinion, if I empty a clip of my AR into someone with a shotgun in a corner and melee him. I think that I deserve the kill. The best option: change it back to the Halo CE shotgun. It was the perfect shotgun in my opinion. Realistic range, yet it still takes two shots to kill at close range.

4) Needler: Although it isn't a huge problem, I find that the needler can be very overpowered. Possible fix: require more needles to cause an explosion.

I'm not trying to complain or criticize, as I understand no game is perfect, but I wanted to share some of my observations about Halo 3.

  • 11.01.2009 6:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think they should take the halo 3 BR, take it apart, and recreate it from the ground up.

  • 11.01.2009 6:40 PM PDT

well to be fair the flamethrower is only on one map so y remove it?

  • 11.01.2009 7:10 PM PDT

nvm and none personally all the gins are pretty good hopefully they will add a few guns

[Edited on 11.01.2009 7:12 PM PST]

  • 11.01.2009 7:11 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

I hope they remove the ruiner of vehicular battle; the Laser.

  • 11.01.2009 7:16 PM PDT