Currently, I’m kind of afraid of the idea of spawning with the same weapons as everyone else in a multiplayer match. I hope this kind of gameplay doesn’t devalue the AR and Magnum in Halo 5. In Reach and Halo 4 the AR has really earned a spot on any team. I don’t want them to become throw away weapons like in Halo 3, the last Halo game to have equal spawns. I Love the Halo 4 AR and Magnum, they can at least put up a good fight up against they contemporaries in Halo 4. Please 343, give every Halo 5 Guardians weapon a real fighting chance on the battlefield.
The AR is inherently broken, its not good for gameplay and rendered the shotgun and sword useless. (The AR from Halo 4 of course.)
The sole purpose of the gun is to help bad players get familiar with game, not to complete with other weapons.
> The AR is inherently broken, its not good for gameplay and rendered the shotgun and sword useless. (The AR from Halo 4 of course.)
We must have been playing a different game, because I don’t recall the AR ever being a problem—or at least not anywhere close to where you’re describing it—in Halo 4.
> The sole purpose of the gun is to help bad players get familiar with game, not to complete with other weapons.
There’s your problem.
The AR serves as an automatic close-to-mid ranged weapon utility weapon.
I don’t know where you got the idea that the purpose of the AR is help new players get better, but I can pretty much say right now that intentionally making weapons useless is not a very good way to design an arena sandbox.
> The AR is inherently broken, its not good for gameplay and rendered the shotgun and sword useless. (The AR from Halo 4 of course.)
>
> The sole purpose of the gun is to help bad players get familiar with game, not to complete with other weapons.
You clearly have never played Halo CE. The AR in that game is useful, powerful even due to the 16 shot kill mixed with 15 rounds per second rate of fire. It was also however perfectly balanced with all the other weapons in the game. AR and Magnum starts were ideal for CE. Every weapon in that game was useful because it had a niche. The AR’s niche was being effective at close ranges. If a weapon does not have a niche, something that it excels at, then it is completely pointless and should be removed. The AR in Halo 4 had a niche, it was still dominated by the shotgun, but it was effective within its intended range and if you burst fired the range could be extended further.
The idea of the AR going back to being a throw away weapon because of the return of identical starts does indeed leave me concerned.
343 had a good intention for the AR in Halo 4 and it was certainly an improvement over it’s earlier iterations that were never designed to compete with weapons like the BR and DMR.
Let’s hope that 343 takes steps to improve upon what they did in Halo 4 so that Halo 5’s AR can reach as point where it’s just as skillful and competitive as the other rifles.
I really hope that going back to identical starts doesn’t mean the AR has to revert back to it’s previous iterations, but I guess it also means that 343 wont have any motivation to balance it that way.
That’s one of the things that I really liked about load outs. With everyone being able to spawn with these weapons 343 were put under a lot more pressure to balance the weapons to compete against each other. I liked the idea that a CC and BR could go head to head and compete against each other on even terms instead of them just being kinda balanced like in Halos 2 or 3. With a lack of load outs that pressure to balance the weapons is gone.
> The sole purpose of the gun is to help bad players get familiar with game, not to complete with other weapons.
Says who?
I honestly think precision weapons kind of ruin gameplay
I mean think about it, just spam some grenades, shields pop, boom headshot.
Precision weapons are TOO good and kind of leave everything else, spare power weapons, useless.
Maybe 5 should be the first halo game in which every weapon type has some level of headshot capability? I’m not saying AR should be a 1hsk on an unshielded opponent, but at least faster.
Just a thought. I’m not sure how i feel about that myself because halo does have a certain feel to it that i think it should keep…
> The AR is inherently broken, its not good for gameplay and rendered the shotgun and sword useless. (The AR from Halo 4 of course.)
>
> The sole purpose of the gun is to help bad players get familiar with game, not to complete with other weapons.
That would fit the catagory for:
BR- Halo 2,3 and 4 for making the other weapons besides power weapons pointless to use due to faster kill times, better range, and much more simplistic shooting mechanics.
DMR- Halo: Reach and Halo 4 pre weapon update. Reach being having the capacity to kill 3 enemies, or allow a person to misuse the gun and still get 2 kills, and having faster kill times while the AR gets 1 kill and an almost unshielded opponent(assuming you learn to let go of the trigger at the EXACT moment the opponent drops dead). Halo 4 for being the flat out better choice in longer ranged combat, which is what most maps favored since all the maps were larger to support it. It also trumped the BR due to a very simplistic game mechanic: Spam the trigger on the head until dead, while the BR user had to deal with less RRR, weaker damage per bullet, spread and a recoil effect. Such “Skill”.
Stop confusing Skill with “Easy Mode”. The AR, and most automatics, has always been given a harder time to kill opponents when compared to the BR and DMR. Halo 3 and Reach had proven that since the average user in both games that featured them usually would have the BR/DMR as their most used weapon. Halo 4 post update was the first time that the AR was an actual option to use as a close-mid range weapon.
All everyone learned in those games was to dump the AR for something else. That’s not good gameplay, and I am glad when they buffed it to encourage smarter gameplay when playing with BRs. I hope they follow through in the Beta.
To the OP: The AR wasn’t bad because of the way the gun was designed. It was bad because Bungie couldn’t figure out how to make the gun good for close-mid range without it being good for long range combat as well. Bloom came up, which was a good solution for the problem, but they chose not to buff it for whatever reason.
> Maybe 5 should be the first halo game in which every weapon type has some level of headshot capability? I’m not saying AR should be a 1hsk on an unshielded opponent, but at least faster.
>
> Just a thought. I’m not sure how i feel about that myself because halo does have a certain feel to it that i think it should keep…
That’s known as a headshot multiplier. Destiny has them. The way I think it could work in Halo is: automatics do bonus damage on headshot, precisions instant kill, some weapons don’t have the effect (probably PP, Storm/Plasma rifle)
> > Maybe 5 should be the first halo game in which every weapon type has some level of headshot capability? I’m not saying AR should be a 1hsk on an unshielded opponent, but at least faster.
> >
> > Just a thought. I’m not sure how i feel about that myself because halo does have a certain feel to it that i think it should keep…
>
> That’s known as a headshot multiplier. Destiny has them. The way I think it could work in Halo is: automatics do bonus damage on headshot, precisions instant kill, some weapons don’t have the effect (probably PP, Storm/Plasma rifle)
Destiny has ADS, which would allow that to work well since you can burst fire much more accurately. Add to it they slow down when they do helps their aim as well.
Halo doesn’t, at least so far, have that feature. If anything, requiring to do headshots on a gun that has a reticle that explodes to max after 3 or 4 shots would do more harm than good. The gun is currently designed that you have to aim at the center of mass while pacing your shots if the target doesn’t fill up the circle.
If anything, reducing the bloom could possibly encourage turbo controller use, which can have a negative impact on the multiplayer side of the game. Either way, I don’t support the idea mainly because the gun itself is designed against that idea.
> > Maybe 5 should be the first halo game in which every weapon type has some level of headshot capability? I’m not saying AR should be a 1hsk on an unshielded opponent, but at least faster.
> >
> > Just a thought. I’m not sure how i feel about that myself because halo does have a certain feel to it that i think it should keep…
>
> That’s known as a headshot multiplier. Destiny has them. The way I think it could work in Halo is: automatics do bonus damage on headshot, precisions instant kill, some weapons don’t have the effect (probably PP, Storm/Plasma rifle)
Any weapons that lack this feature would be at a sore disadvantage. I think that if its implemented plasma weapons shouldn’t be left out.
I also think that headshot multipliers should not take effect until shields are down. Not sure if that was already implied or not, but i want to state that clearly.
Besides, think about it: if anything plasma weapons would have more effect being that they would melt your visor… But that is bad for gameplay.
> > >
>
> Destiny has ADS, which would allow that to work well since you can burst fire much more accurately. Add to it they slow down when they do helps their aim as well.
>
> Halo doesn’t, at least so far, have that feature. If anything, requiring to do headshots on a gun that has a reticle that explodes to max after 3 or 4 shots would do more harm than good. The gun is currently designed that you have to aim at the center of mass while pacing your shots if the target doesn’t fill up the circle.
>
> If anything, reducing the bloom could possibly encourage turbo controller use, which can have a negative impact on the multiplayer side of the game. Either way, I don’t support the idea mainly because the gun itself is designed against that idea.
Valid points. Not sure what you are talking about with turbo controllers though. Is it a type of modded controller? and how would bloom dissuade people from using it on full auto weapons? Just curious.
Anyway, I dont think the reticle really kills it that much. Like you said reducing bloom somewhat and/or decreasing the reticle size overall could make head shots more viable.
It could also become another differentiator between skill levels. It would take time to learn the ranges at which you should go for the safer body shots and the ranges at which you try for head shots. Kind of like how you currently have to learn the ranges at which you can try to kill a BR user with your AR vs the ranges at which you should make yourself scarce.
I’m just trying to brainstorm ways that it could theoretically work.
> > > Maybe 5 should be the first halo game in which every weapon type has some level of headshot capability? I’m not saying AR should be a 1hsk on an unshielded opponent, but at least faster.
> > >
> > > Just a thought. I’m not sure how i feel about that myself because halo does have a certain feel to it that i think it should keep…
> >
> > That’s known as a headshot multiplier. Destiny has them. The way I think it could work in Halo is: automatics do bonus damage on headshot, precisions instant kill, some weapons don’t have the effect (probably PP, Storm/Plasma rifle)
>
> Any weapons that lack this feature would be at a sore disadvantage. I think that if its implemented plasma weapons shouldn’t be left out.
>
> I also think that headshot multipliers should not take effect until shields are down. Not sure if that was already implied or not, but i want to state that clearly.
>
> Besides, think about it: if anything plasma weapons would have more effect being that they would melt your visor… But that is bad for gameplay.
I think someone once suggested that plasma weapons have a flare/blinding effect upon headshots, but that would be pretty negligible if it was shields-down only. I agree that UNSC weapons should only multiply on unshielded enemies, though.
> > > Maybe 5 should be the first halo game in which every weapon type has some level of headshot capability? I’m not saying AR should be a 1hsk on an unshielded opponent, but at least faster.
> > >
> > > Just a thought. I’m not sure how i feel about that myself because halo does have a certain feel to it that i think it should keep…
> >
> > That’s known as a headshot multiplier. Destiny has them. The way I think it could work in Halo is: automatics do bonus damage on headshot, precisions instant kill, some weapons don’t have the effect (probably PP, Storm/Plasma rifle)
>
> Destiny has ADS, which would allow that to work well since you can burst fire much more accurately. Add to it they slow down when they do helps their aim as well.
>
> Halo doesn’t, at least so far, have that feature. If anything, requiring to do headshots on a gun that has a reticle that explodes to max after 3 or 4 shots would do more harm than good. The gun is currently designed that you have to aim at the center of mass while pacing your shots if the target doesn’t fill up the circle.
>
> If anything, reducing the bloom could possibly encourage turbo controller use, which can have a negative impact on the multiplayer side of the game. Either way, I don’t support the idea mainly because the gun itself is designed against that idea.
If you burst-fire an AR in Halo 4, you can beat BR users in mid-range combat. It’s frickin’ awesome. Besides, it’s not actual headshots, just a damage bonus, so you can choose not to do so or not depending on your enemy’s distance. It being hard to aim just makes it more skilful.
> Valid points. Not sure what you are talking about with turbo controllers though. Is it a type of modded controller? and how would bloom dissuade people from using it on full auto weapons? Just curious.
A turbo controller is a controller that is similar to the one you use on any console. However, it has an additional button called the Turbo Button. Press it once, and you can assign any other button to be set to Turbo. After setting it, the controller can tell the console that you are pressing the button really really fast just by holding it. It’s the reason why I do not like button mashing events that determine the outcome of a fight, such as Gears of Wars’ chainsaw duel.
You can find these at a game store, or you can find some online.
It applies here that if we were to reduce the time it takes to go to zero after one shot too much, the Turbo controller will make the gun stronger than originally intended by making the first shot almost always accurate since the gun
> Anyway, I dont think the reticle really kills it that much. Like you said reducing bloom somewhat and/or decreasing the reticle size overall could make head shots more viable.
The reticle does have an effect on the range of the target. The bigger it is, the less range it has(unless noted otherwise) due to better accuracy.
You also need to be aware that the current rule of shields is this: Regardless of where you are hit, you don’t extra damage so long as there is a point of shields remaining. You can be shot in the foot, or shot in the head, and the damage will always be the same…unless that bullet happens to belong to a sniper rifle. The rule will need to be changed to allow such a tactic to happen.
It can make headshots more viable, but it could also allows for more spraying, instead of burst fire.
It could also become another differentiator between skill levels. It would take time to learn the ranges at which you should go for the safer body shots and the ranges at which you try for head shots. Kind of like how you currently have to learn the ranges at which you can try to kill a BR user with your AR vs the ranges at which you should make yourself scarce.
I’m just trying to brainstorm ways that it could theoretically work.
[/quote]
Reducing reticle size increases its range, and allows for more spray. If anything needs to be done, the bloom expansion rate or recovery rate needs improvement.
The gun acts at a downward curve and should always be above the BR and DMR in terms of strength in terms of close range combat, then decrease as distance is added in between the user and target.
What needs to be done is to find an acceptable range of what Medium Range is for both BR and AR to compete equally. After that, its more of figuring out how to add depth to using the AR at this point without severely punishing the player, and without making it too easy for the BR to mess up. Then test the holy crap out of it until they can meet up as evenly as possible.
I think the current 2 weapon difference is the better option. It’s way too tricky to add in a headshot multiplier into the AR. If it is too good, then the AR in its current state will be very nerfed if it is often difficult to pull off a reasonable amount of shots since there is almost no control as to where the bullets will fly after the first shot.
Translating the stats of the AR and BR into Halo 4, and adjusting them so that the 2 guns are on more equal grounds in Medium range(after defining at what distance medium range actually is) and balancing them is probably the better solution. After that, it’s just alot of math work.
> If you burst-fire an AR in Halo 4, you can beat BR users in mid-range combat. It’s frickin’ awesome. Besides, it’s not actual headshots, just a damage bonus, so you can choose not to do so or not depending on your enemy’s distance. It being hard to aim just makes it more skilful.
Two things you need to consider:
1-The AR is at its most precise when its the first 1-2 shots. After that, you really are praying to score the third headshot.
2- Shielded heads do not allow headshot multipliers unless it is from a sniper-weapon.
On average, late into the fight, the bloom will be too big to allow a person to wait. If they burst fire too much, their damage-rate will be too low to allow a kill against the BR. Too much distance will make headshots very unlikely. Even if its a bonus, it would still have a huge impact on how the weapon works, and would need to be made into consideration as to how the gun plays. Should they allow a 13SK weapon become a 11 or 10SK weapon? That would be incredibly fast in comparison to the BR.
I still think its too tricky. I think its much easier to actual define what medium and long range is in terms of meters/feet/<insert space metric system here>, and build the guns from there. Afterwards, build the maps based on those rules to allow better flow of combat.
There’s no fundamental reason why on-map weapons have to be less powerful than off-spawn weapons.
Ehh it’ll still be relevant. It was relevant at high 50s in some situations.
I could just as easily say that because it might not be a spawning option 343 has greater incentive to make the AR(or other former loadouts weapons) worthwhile.
I also don’t see much of a purpose to having loadouts if we are going to be stuck with a bunch of redundant clones. You only had 3 choices for a primary in Halo 4: An automatic weapon, a Mid range weapon, and a long range weapon. The choices within those categories amounted to little more than selecting a skin.
As for the magnum, loadout systems that include ‘secondaries’ actively work against having a useful magnum. The Halo 4 did absolutely nothing that the other precision weapons couldn’t, it ever so slight advantages were vastly outweighed by the advantages of the BR and friends. If it wasn’t for the perk restriction the Halo 4 magnum would almost never be selected.
The Halo 4 magnum was awful.
A well balanced arena sandbox should not have any issues making other weapons worth picking up. Halo 2 and 3 had dual wielding which crippled the auto sandbox as well as the ‘sidearms’. CE and Reach had a mostly good sandbox and to Halo 4’s credit auto weapons were actually lethal again.
Poor design and balance will damage the sandbox no matter what system 343 uses so I would rather have them try and fail with equal(or very limited selection) starts than try and fail with a custom loadout system with Halo 4.
Obviously I would prefer them not fail at all, but I would prefer to see them at least try to go back to traditional spawns.
Tl;dr, I don’t understand why having equal starts is any more or less likely to ‘devalue’ certain weapons. In fact I would argue it is more likely to produce useful and distinct weapons.
> I honestly think precision weapons kind of ruin gameplay
>
> I mean think about it, just spam some grenades, shields pop, boom headshot.
>
> Precision weapons are TOO good and kind of leave everything else, spare power weapons, useless.
Not true at all. I still manage to use every weapon in each games sandbox and get kills. Each weapon in the Halo sandbox has it’s own unique purpose and I have managed to use them all without problem.
Turbo controllers don’t work in Halo. The RoF is set by the software - not user input. You can never fire faster than the minimum frames-between-shots assigned to the weapon. Arguments about turbo controllers are N/A for Halo.
I am not opposed to HS multipliers for automatics. It would help make the weapon less spray-and-pray. Aiming at the center of mass is a lot easier. HS multipliers would encourage players to land at least the first couple of shots to the head and then transition to center-of-mass for the remainder to minimize kill times, or dodge in-and-out of cover while burst firing. Both of those techniques require more skill to do well than simply aiming center + pull trigger.
I think everyone is making too much of the balance issue. The technique of aiming head and then center will have one kill time. The technique of aiming center alone will have another, longer kill time. The first ought to require (depending on RoF) ~14 rounds and the second ~16 rounds. The 16-round kill time compared to the BR kill time should be slightly longer than it is now, and the 14-round kill time slightly less.
I also would prefer that bloom disappear from Halo to be replaced by recoil / reticle bounce. Weapons should always fire where the reticle is. To limit the range of automatics, rather than have random bullet trajectories, I would like to see the weapon require active user input to compensate for recoil / bounce. The recoil should be the predictable component (so the gun climbs with each round fired in a predictable fashion) and the bounce should be the random component (reticle bounces around the center of the screen independently of the look direction while firing). Those users skilled enough to compensate their aim for the bounce will be rewarded by more effective burst firing kill times.
For the Magnum, having the primary/secondary distinction is not useful, IMO. You should get to spawn with 2 weapons. Those weapons should both be viable primaries. Make the Magnum a 5SK - maybe a tad slower on RoF - with hefty recoil / bounce. It has to have an ideal kill time benefit to offset the magazine size.
> I don’t understand why having equal starts is any more or less likely to ‘devalue’ certain weapons. In fact I would argue it is more likely to produce useful and distinct weapons.
Precisely. The reason the weapons in H4 were so boringly similar is because they had to be made nearly equivalent for loadout purposes. Getting rid of or severely restricting loadouts lets the weapons be unique.