I’ve never understood this ideology that “BR = hardcore competitive ultracool L3GiiT 420 pro” and that “casuals would never want to touch the BR because it is just too hard to use and they would rather spray with their ARs lolololelel come at me bro umad”.
Like, every single casual player I see is using the BR. You know why? Because it’s the most all-around effective weapon. Casuals will ALWAYS gravitate toward the most effective weapons. Gears of War? The combat was nothing but shotguns because it was the most effective weapon. CoD4? Nothing but M16s because it was the most effective weapon. Note how none of these are considered “spray weapons”. I know that when I was a casual and first started playing Halo (back in 2007 as an annoying 14 year old) that I absolutely hated having to use the AR and wanted BR starts “soooo badly!” because I just didn’t have a sense of delayed gratification and wanted my kill-all weapon “right now, waaaah!”
I just don’t get how people can arrive at the conclusion that the AR is the easy-killing weapon that casuals use, but also the weapon that gets you dominated if you have to use it. It’s entirely contradictory. “Only noobs use the AR!” and “Wait, I have to use the AR this match? Great, now we’re gonna lose!” Or how about “It takes no skill to spray with an AR!” BRs down an AR user who landed every single shot but still died
The BR does have a much higher skill ceiling than the AR so it’s optimal for playing highly competitive matches where you want as level of a playing field as possible, but the BR’s skill floor is not much higher than the AR’s, so it’s not like the casuals can’t benefit from the BR’s complete outclassing of the AR.
So everybody naturally uses the OP weapon to get easy kills? 
> 2533274825353387;2:
> So everybody naturally uses the OP weapon to get easy kills?
Lol that’s pretty much what I thought after reading this.
On a side note for the GoW 3 reference; Lancer all day 'er day.
> 2533274913695112;3:
> > 2533274825353387;2:
> > So everybody naturally uses the OP weapon to get easy kills?
>
>
> Lol that’s pretty much what I thought after reading this.
Well, the gist I was getting at is that casuals use the OP weapon, not whatever weapon is the “spray weapon”, and that oftentimes the “spray weapon” isn’t even the OP weapon.
Well yeah the BR is Overpowered and has always been “overpowered” in comparison to the AR, but thats a good thing.
The AR doesn’t really demand anything to use, you just keep it on the body and hold Right Trigger… The BR takes a little aim, it should be more powerful. Harder to use but more rewarding. Thats always made sense to me. Idk why everyone always demanded the AR to outmatch the BR in closer combat. I thought Halo 3 struck a good balance for BR v AR at close range. It was usually 50/50 in close combat fights. Seems like AR lovers want it to be 100% better than the BR at close range.
> 2535420228232672;5:
> Well yeah the BR is Overpowered and has always been “overpowered” in comparison to the AR, but thats a good thing.
>
> The AR doesn’t really demand anything to use, you just keep it on the body and hold Right Trigger… The BR takes a little aim, it should be more powerful. Harder to use but more rewarding. Thats always made sense to me. Idk why everyone always demanded the AR to outmatch the BR in closer combat. I thought Halo 3 struck a good balance for BR v AR at close range. It was usually 50/50 in close combat fights. Seems like AR lovers want it to be 100% better than the BR at close range.
Thing is, it’s not like that in Halo 5. AR has been given a huge boost in power, yes, but many fight I see with a BR vs AR ends up BR winning. It’s not 50/50, it’s more like 75/25
> 2533274825353387;2:
> So everybody naturally uses the OP weapon to get easy kills?
Versatile =/= Overpowered
> 2533274819302824;7:
> > 2533274825353387;2:
> > So everybody naturally uses the OP weapon to get easy kills?
>
>
> Versatile =/= Overpowered
Useful =/= Overpowered
Thank you. People prefer BR starts not just because it’s more skillful, but simply more fun. Getting that perfect 4-shot is much more satisfying than back-to-back spray downs.
> 2533274845095818;9:
> Thank you. People prefer BR starts not just because it’s more skillful, but simply more fun. Getting that perfect 4-shot is much more satisfying than back-to-back spray downs.
Amen to that. I NEVER feel satisfied with an AR kill. But getting Perfect Kill medals with the BR? Makes me warm and fuzzy inside.
> 2535420228232672;5:
> Well yeah the BR is Overpowered and has always been “overpowered” in comparison to the AR, but thats a good thing.
>
> The AR doesn’t really demand anything to use, you just keep it on the body and hold Right Trigger… The BR takes a little aim, it should be more powerful. Harder to use but more rewarding. Thats always made sense to me. Idk why everyone always demanded the AR to outmatch the BR in closer combat. I thought Halo 3 struck a good balance for BR v AR at close range. It was usually 50/50 in close combat fights. Seems like AR lovers want it to be 100% better than the BR at close range.
Because there should be a purpose to every weapon in the game, unlike other shooters that have 100 meaningless weapons. ARs should be out-skilled in CQ fights, not over powered by an identical tier, mid range weapon. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the AR?
The AR kills 0.3s faster than the BR.
If you’re losing CQC fights, that’s on you.
Just played a game. We lost because the other team did a better job of utilizing the power weapons to win. The BR is not the be all end all in Halo. It never has been. Other weapons are better and will help you win. What the BR does is allow you to have a chance to survive in pretty much any situation. It allows you to move around the map. It makes you use a little more thought when you use grenades and melee attacks.
When you start with only an AR or an SMG the game plays out one of two ways, neither of which are fun. One team is going to slaughter the other team by 25+ kills because the losers are basically defenseless or the game is a giant clusterfrack of people running into rooms wildly spraying and meleeing and then complaining about getting killed by grenades.
I am as casual a gamer as they come and even I know that a Halo style game is perfectly designed for a BR/Pistol/DMR start. It isn’t a fast paced arena shooter like Quake or Painkiller but it isn’t a slow, tactical shooter like Rainbow Six. It fits into its own little niche and once they added BR starts to the Halo 5 beta it is clear that Halo 5 will once again fit comfortably into its part of the FPS realm.
> 2535420228232672;5:
> Well yeah the BR is Overpowered and has always been “overpowered” in comparison to the AR, but thats a good thing.
>
> The AR doesn’t really demand anything to use, you just keep it on the body and hold Right Trigger… The BR takes a little aim, it should be more powerful. Harder to use but more rewarding. Thats always made sense to me. Idk why everyone always demanded the AR to outmatch the BR in closer combat. I thought Halo 3 struck a good balance for BR v AR at close range. It was usually 50/50 in close combat fights. Seems like AR lovers want it to be 100% better than the BR at close range.
How does the AR not demand anything to use? It’s not “just” keeping it aimed at the body. It really is difficult to use against competent players. With the AR, it takes 13 shots to kill, and missing just one little shot could screw everything up for you. You’ve got to keep it at center mass, you’ve got to stay up close to the enemy so it entails more positioning skill than BR fights, and you’ve got to worry about melee, something you don’t have to worry about in BR fights.
And the AR should outmatch the BR at close combat because if not, then what the hell is the point of even having it in the game? Why even use it if it’s a 50/50 BR/AR toss up in close range, but the BR is also good at mid and long range where the AR can’t even compete at that range? That makes no sense at all. Having the AR better in close range is called balance.
> 2533274819302824;7:
> Versatile =/= Overpowered
Yes it does.
> 2533274883849234;6:
> Thing is, it’s not like that in Halo 5. AR has been given a huge boost in power, yes, but many fight I see with a BR vs AR ends up BR winning. It’s not 50/50, it’s more like 75/25
It hasn’t been given a boost in power at all. It’s still the same amount of damage as Halo 4, but actually a slower rate of fire, so a slower kill speed. It just has more accuracy now.
> 2752423165120539;13:
> Just played a game. We lost because the other team did a better job of utilizing the power weapons to win. The BR is not the be all end all in Halo. It never has been. Other weapons are better and will help you win. What the BR does is allow you to have a chance to survive in pretty much any situation. It allows you to move around the map. It makes you use a little more thought when you use grenades and melee attacks.
>
> When you start with only an AR or an SMG the game plays out one of two ways, neither of which are fun. One team is going to slaughter the other team by 25+ kills because the losers are basically defenseless or the game is a giant clusterfrack of people running into rooms wildly spraying and meleeing and then complaining about getting killed by grenades.
>
> I am as casual a gamer as they come and even I know that a Halo style game is perfectly designed for a BR/Pistol/DMR start. It isn’t a fast paced arena shooter like Quake or Painkiller but it isn’t a slow, tactical shooter like Rainbow Six. It fits into its own little niche and once they added BR starts to the Halo 5 beta it is clear that Halo 5 will once again fit comfortably into its part of the FPS realm.
The BR was certainly the be all end all in Halo 2, and close to it in Halo 3.
And the argument that one team will slaughter the other by using all the BRs in an AR start match is just -Yoinking!- ridiculously false. For one thing, there are tons of BRs around the map so it’s incredibly unlikely that anyone wouldn’t find one. It’s not like the BRs are all in power-weapon spots. They’re usually in innocuous places right near the spawns, and spaced evenly so that each team has equal access to them.
> Yes it does.
Shotgun wins in CQC.
Rockets win at medium range.
Sniper wins at long range.
Being able to fight in all these ranges doesn’t make it dominant in all these ranges.
Really, solid argument though.
> Why even use it if it’s a 50/50 BR/AR toss up in close range, but the BR is also good at mid and long range where the AR can’t even compete at that range? That makes no sense at all. Having the AR better in close range is called balance.
Depends on if you’re “balancing” for skill, or “balancing” to have every weapon fill an specific role (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive).
If the former, the more skillful strategy should be rewarded more. Balancing for skill is why we can no scope with the sniper instead of dealing with immense out of scope spread like in Call of Duty. Different balance philosophies.
If it’s a 50/50 toss up, why use the AR? Oh I don’t know, because it’s easier to use in that range than the BR is and thus using it would be the smart decision?
> 2533274819302824;16:
> Shotgun wins in CQC.
> Rockets win at medium range.
> Sniper wins at long range.
>
> Being able to fight in all these ranges doesn’t make it dominant in all these ranges.
>
> Really, solid argument though.
You’re taking power weapons into account, which is something else entirely. Don’t act like it’s the same. If the BR were a “jack of all trades, master of none” it would be fine. Unfortunately, it’s a “jack of all trades, master of mid-range combat” (again, in relation to other weapons in its tier, not power weapons). The AR is a “jack of some trades, master of none”.
> 2533274819302824;16:
> > Why even use it if it’s a 50/50 BR/AR toss up in close range, but the BR is also good at mid and long range where the AR can’t even compete at that range? That makes no sense at all. Having the AR better in close range is called balance.
>
>
> Depends on if you’re “balancing” for skill, or “balancing” to have every weapon fill an equal role (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive).
> If the former, the more skillful strategy should be rewarded more.
The riskier strategy should be rewarded more when it pays off. For example, rushing to close range with the AR should provide more payoff than camping back with a BR.
> 2533274819302824;16:
> > Why even use it if it’s a 50/50 BR/AR toss up in close range, but the BR is also good at mid and long range where the AR can’t even compete at that range? That makes no sense at all. Having the AR better in close range is called balance.
>
>
> Depends on if you’re “balancing” for skill, or “balancing” to have every weapon fill an specific role (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive).
>
> If the former, the more skillful strategy should be rewarded more. Balancing for skill is why we can no scope with the sniper instead of dealing with immense out of scope spread like in Call of Duty. Different balance philosophies.
>
> If it’s a 50/50 toss up, why use the AR? Oh I don’t know, because it’s easier to use in that range than the BR is and thus using it would be the smart decision?
Just wanna thank you Ramirez for being someone with good common sense. Ive read many posts by you and you really have a good understanding about everything. Wish everyone on the forums were this way; that way instead of fighting each other we could all bond together and be trying to send a message to 343
> 2533274819302824;16:
> If it’s a 50/50 toss up, why use the AR? Oh I don’t know, because it’s easier to use in that range than the BR is and thus using it would be the smart decision?
Uhhh, that wouldn’t be a 50/50 toss up then…
> 2535420228232672;18:
> > 2533274819302824;16:
> > > Why even use it if it’s a 50/50 BR/AR toss up in close range, but the BR is also good at mid and long range where the AR can’t even compete at that range? That makes no sense at all. Having the AR better in close range is called balance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Depends on if you’re “balancing” for skill, or “balancing” to have every weapon fill an specific role (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive).
> >
> > If the former, the more skillful strategy should be rewarded more. Balancing for skill is why we can no scope with the sniper instead of dealing with immense out of scope spread like in Call of Duty. Different balance philosophies.
> >
> > If it’s a 50/50 toss up, why use the AR? Oh I don’t know, because it’s easier to use in that range than the BR is and thus using it would be the smart decision?
>
>
> Just wanna thank you Ramirez for being someone with good common sense. Ive read many posts by you and you really have a good understanding about everything. Wish everyone on the forums were this way; that way instead of fighting each other we could all bond together and be trying to send a message to 343
Oh quit the -Yoink–riding. Everyone finds someone they agree with. This dude is no different from any other poster here.