- MythicSniper
- |
- Veteran Legendary Member
For The Lulz is a worthier cause than For The Win.
From the skies to the ground, I'm the one that'll reign destruction down on you from behind the wheel and the flight stick. Keep your eyes on the rear view mirror, or you may be eating exhaust aside the road, riddled with holes.
My sniper is hungry for souls.
If at first you fail, fail again so that you succeed by wrapping your fail around the continuum into the win zone.
Posted by: Potato Mawnster
Why would I think that getting a headshot matters with a shotgun? Center of mass is the upper torso area. From the video in the first post, you were missing quite a few shots or weren't hitting center mass.
I didn't think you thought that. I was making the point that center-of-mass shots are the only thing anyone should be going for with the shotgun. If somebody tried to go for anything else, they'd be an idiot, hence my point. Also, that's one video, and as I have stated numerous times, my gameplay in that video was horrible compared to my standard fare. Additionally, I was usually laughing too hard to play properly. I'm the type of person whose gameplay gets impaired by too many lulz, which, I think, is pretty normal.
Why the hell would you bring up your statistics in this argument? By your logic, I'm automatically right since I'm higher than you in those two aspects; no exceptions. Don't use experience to validate your point, it does not work.
The point in bringing up statistics is to reinforce the fact that I have experience with the shotgun. So I'm not some moron who's complaining about the shotgun because I can't use it. I can use it, and I do. I wasn't trying to state that I was some shotgun master or something.
Like I said again, the 1 shot kill range is meant to be shorter than the sword and hammer's lunge range; and with good reason. It's to prevent them from being overshadowed by the shotgun, if not already.
Fiar enough, but the sword easily overshadows the shotgun in Reach due to the presence of sprint. Sprint + Sword is just about the easiest way to run around killing everything in sight. I'm speaking for the average Reach player when I make this argument. I'm not talking about what would happen if I were in the situation. In general, the sword beats the shotgun because most people suck with the shotgun and most people have thumbs, so they can use the severely overpowered sword + sprint combo.
Of course the AR should beat the shotgun; assuming it's at medium range. It's out of the shotgun's weapon role. If the shotgun beats the AR at med range and more, then that makes the AR completely useless, although it already is.
I was never saying that the AR shouldn't beat the shotgun at midrange. Of course it should. The point of what I was saying is that the shotgun is useless in the hands of most players in most situations against a player using an AR because people backpedal. This isn't just the case at midrange. At close range, where the shotgun is supposed to be king, a player with an AR can easily still best the shotgun user simply by backpedaling and spraying. That's completely idiotic. A shotgun is devastating at close range. It shouldn't lose out to an assault rifle if the reticule is red.
The stronger emphasis on shot placement this time is to promote more aiming; that's good. The potential for efficacy is still there. Complaining about having to aim for center of mass is pretty much complaining because it's too difficult.
I agree, it is good, but I'm not complaining about having to aim for center of mass. Where did you even get that idea? What I'm criticizing is the fact, when you factor in armor abilities, kill times, and movement speeds, the shotgun is really only effective at point blank range. That's stupid. That's not balance. That makes it a serious niche weapon, even more so than the sword or the hammer.
The shotgun could use a bit more range, but saying it's below the Halo 3 shotgun is simply ignorant. Like I said again, go test it out and compare. I argue that it is decent enough though; the end of the red reticule range is a 3 shot kill (2 if lucky.). That's quite far for a CQC weapon.
The Reach shotgun is simply too moody. The H3 shotgun was reliable. If I aimed for center of mass at close range, I would kill them in one shot, guaranteed. In Reach, if I do the same thing, I may not kill them in one shot, even under the same conditions. The sword's ridiculous lunge and the Sword + Sprint combo makes the shotgun the loser in most situations. It's too easy to use the sword. I'm not saying the shotgun should be easier to use. I'm simply saying it should be more dependable. I shouldn't have to follow up every single shell with a habitual melee if the target's midsection takes up the entire reticule. I should be able to pull the trigger and kill them if the conditions are met. This is not always the case, and in fact, it's usually not the case.