> 2535446424293227;4:
> Thank you for answering!
>
> I can agree with some of them being “gimmicky”, but is there a reason they couldn’t, say, make different maps with different weapon sets? Also I realize some of Halo 4’s balance issues (god the beam rifle was so easy to no-scope with in 4), but those can be easily changed for 5. For example, for a map that was extremely large and uncharacteristically open-fielded, they could issue the binary rifle for that (make it a single-shot round if necessary). I already felt like with how obvious it was when a binary rifle was trained on you, combined with Halo 5’s new movement options, it wouldn’t be a problem to avoid, but would offer a different playstyle. The player using the weapon would have to get extremely good at training the hip fire sights on a faraway opponent before scoping in, not allowing the victim much time to react. Given that the ammo cartridge is already tiny in the Binary Rifle, and given how awfully inaccurate it is at close range, I think it could make for an interesting alternative match. Movement would be the same, fundamentals and engine physics would be the same, but the weapons would require different use of those tools and basics. In this case, the weapon design would allow for some long-range combat, but also not make it over-centralizing per se, and also encourage movement and closer-range combat, which you wouldn’t expect to see on a huge, open map. Essentially, changing the weapons also allows for different kinds of maps, the likes of which haven’t been seen in Halo before.
>
> Also incoming less-important opinions that still illustrate my point:
>
>
>
> - Incineration Cannon I felt was fine because of the absurd reload time, the single-round and slow firing rate, and also the obviousness of the projectile as it travelled. I realize others may not agree though.
>
> - Fuel Rod was just dumb in 4, lol. Way too easy to just camp in the tighter areas with it, spam it in a burst to ensure a kill, and hold onto it without the ammo expiring. That thing would honestly just need a serious ammo nerf and it would be fine.
>
> - I do agree some weapons are straight up repetitive though, like the suppressor and storm rifle compared to the AR. Honestly, the differences are so trivial you could make them AR skins and it wouldn’t really change much. Though it would not bother me as much if they will not be included in competitive in some form, I still think altogether avoiding them, or not trying to do something with them would be a missed opportunity.
> LRs, however, to me felt too different to be something to just glance over. If you left it up to me, I’d completely remove the DMR (too close to the BR in function but worse where it counts and not very good at what it’s supposed to excel at). LR however is purposely to swap the BR’s advantages and disadvantages in range. It’s pretty much a BR counter that also functions as a reliable mid range weapon, but not the best. I find that very interesting, honestly. Plus, I have to admit some bias–it just looks and sounds badass.
>
> TL;DR – opinions.
>
> Also, important question: Who… decides the ruleset for the weapons and maps? If the answer is “MLG”, then I mean, “who are the individuals who choose”? I ask because in Smash competitive, usually tournament organizers have the final say in the rules, and attendance is based partially on their rules and how much people like them. Generally, however, we try to keep the community as the main deciding factor, not an organization or the way the elites prefer. Many good arguments come from players who don’t place top but are good at theory. Currently there is a debate for Smash for Wii U rules… The debate is between – 2 lives & 6 minutes, versus 3 lives and 8 minutes. We’re still trying to figure out the speed of the game and what’s the most fun, and I’m curious… is it the same case here? Do WE decide? Or do top players decide?
Well, I agree with some and disagree with some.
I dislike the core concept of the binary rifle and never want to see something like it in competitive Halo. Having a player focus on getting the hipfire lined up for a scoped shot isn’t a new concept to players. It’s the same skillset used with the human sniper. The difference is, it’s 1) not exciting to see someone body-shot someone with a binary 2) the human sniper has consistent no-scope capability for really cool plays. This makes the human sniper objectively and subjectively better. More fun to use, less annoying to fight against and provides more cool plays for spectators to enjoy.
The incineration cannon was still ultimately just a redundant rocket launcher. It did nothing the human rocket couldn’t do except that it was even more lenient to missed shots and borderline impossible for players to evade or outplay aside from the user simply completely missing his shot. What I would rather see is the Reach grenade launcher. That was a truly great addition to the game that I’m sad to see gone. The bounce mechanic make it interesting to see what kinds of angles and skill-shots players could use it for while the blast radius was relatively small but direct hits were kills. This meant it was a cool weapon to use, wasn’t overpowered but in the right hands could be used creatively to get entertaining and satisfying kills.
I also agree LRs should replace DMRs. The DMR is redundant now and is basically just a boring long range BR while the LR has a somewhat unique function that makes it superior at long range without being overpowered. It has a use and is the kind of weapon I would happily drop a BR for on larger maps.
Who decides? Well, not MLG since they don’t have Halo anymore. But the organization which organizes the events will talk with current players, retired players on their payroll and some select members of their community for feedback on what goes in and what comes out for their tournament settings. They also go through playtesting. The problem with having the community set the rules is that the community doesn’t always have the best or most educated opinions. They might wholeheartedly support a change in one version then immediately regret it once the version is released and it doesn’t work the way they wanted. These organizations are putting their financial success on the success of their events, it is in their best interest to have settings that appeal to the pros playing and the spectators watching alike.