Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [11 votes]: weapon balance, or skill gap?
  • Poll [11 votes]: weapon balance, or skill gap?
Subject: weapon balance, or skill gap?

And though you fight to stay alive
Your body starts to shiver
For no mere mortal can resist
The evil of the thriller

Poll: weapon balance, or skill gap?  [closed]
balance. many of the guns aren't good enough:  27%
(3 Votes)
skill gap. we need a good skill weapon:  18%
(2 Votes)
Let's try to do both:  55%
(6 Votes)
Total Votes: 11

Some people have been more concerned with weapon balance and weapon diversity, with skill gaps being a secondary concern. Others are more concerned with having a standard weapon with a high skill gap like the Ce pistol, no matter how imbalanced the gun is compared to other standard weapons.

I'm concerned with weapon balance because I feel that a wide variety of weapons that are used will make the game more interesting. The Reach will not feel as predictable as halo 3 if there were a lot more options between weapons than just the battle rifle, rockets, the laser, and the sniper. Many weapons in Halo 3 were useless without melee and or duel wielding, like the Ar and PR, or too situational to be relied on, such as the shotgun.

I can understand why people would want a strong large skill gap weapon though. Large skill gaps can also make the game more interesting since it makes competitive games much more interesting. Plus it also makes sure good players will beat bad players. I too feel annoyed whenever I get killed by an AR beatdown rush.

[Edited on 11.09.2009 5:23 PM PST]

  • 11.09.2009 5:21 PM PDT

Lets try to do both.

The biggest problem, the one that destroys game balance, it that some weapons do more damage on headshots, and others don't. Why can't every weapon do more damage on a headshot, so it is fair for everyone?

[Edited on 11.09.2009 5:23 PM PST]

  • 11.09.2009 5:22 PM PDT

And though you fight to stay alive
Your body starts to shiver
For no mere mortal can resist
The evil of the thriller

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
Lets try to do both.

The biggest problem, the one that destroys game balance, it that some weapons do more damage on headshots, and others don't. Why can't every weapon do more damage on a headshot, so it is fair for everyone?

I don't get why they don't do that either

  • 11.09.2009 5:42 PM PDT

Second acct: RC Zerg Rushes

Both is perfectly possible. Look at any of the UT or Quake games. Look at Halo CE. Look at Counterstrike. Every weapon is lethal in it's own right. Every weapon has a skill gap (with the possible exceptions of rocket launchers) that seperates the good players from the mediocre players from the bad players.

I understand your want for variety, but would you rather have a balanced game or a game with a bunch of extra weapons that fill the same role as others?

  • 11.09.2009 5:46 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"

"Skill gap" is a natural occurence, not something that is built into the game. There is going to be a gap between players, as there are always going to be some better than others.

The issue concerning balance is that the "skill gap" is born out of the use of a weapon, not actual skills. If the game maintained better balance (or at least some balance) the gap would still exist, but at least it would be more based on skilled gameplay, not pickup a BR and camp firing lanes. The game is supposed to be built around diversity, but the current weapon set is so streamlined that there is no balance, if you want an edge, you go with one weapon over any other, that is a problem.

  • 11.09.2009 5:48 PM PDT

Second acct: RC Zerg Rushes

Posted by: bladedancer 7
Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
Lets try to do both.

The biggest problem, the one that destroys game balance, it that some weapons do more damage on headshots, and others don't. Why can't every weapon do more damage on a headshot, so it is fair for everyone?

I don't get why they don't do that either


Because, then fully automatic weapons become overpowered. Take the AR, for instance. On LAN, it's pretty accurate inside it's useful range. If it had a headshot damage multiplier, it'd be the equivalent of a god weapon.

  • 11.09.2009 5:49 PM PDT

And though you fight to stay alive
Your body starts to shiver
For no mere mortal can resist
The evil of the thriller

Posted by: The 13th Arbiter
Both is perfectly possible. Look at any of the UT or Quake games. Look at Halo CE. Look at Counterstrike. Every weapon is lethal in it's own right. Every weapon has a skill gap (with the possible exceptions of rocket launchers) that seperates the good players from the mediocre players from the bad players.

I understand your want for variety, but would you rather have a balanced game or a game with a bunch of extra weapons that fill the same role as others?

the former. I never said I wanted all of the weapons to act the same way. I just simply want all of the guns to be useful. I agree that both is completely possible.

Posted by: The 13th Arbiter
Posted by: bladedancer 7
Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
Lets try to do both.

The biggest problem, the one that destroys game balance, it that some weapons do more damage on headshots, and others don't. Why can't every weapon do more damage on a headshot, so it is fair for everyone?

I don't get why they don't do that either


Because, then fully automatic weapons become overpowered. Take the AR, for instance. On LAN, it's pretty accurate inside it's useful range. If it had a headshot damage multiplier, it'd be the equivalent of a god weapon.

they could always alter the body shot and sheild damage to accommodate the head shots without them being over powered.

[Edited on 11.09.2009 5:51 PM PST]

  • 11.09.2009 5:49 PM PDT