MLG: why we can't have nice autos (maybe not)

Games Other Halo
1

Not bashing MLG first off, just pointing something out.

There’s a great thread going by Plasma Prestige about the decline of auto weapons: http://forums.halo.xbox.com/yaf_postst92380_The-Failure-of-Automatic-Weapon-Design.aspx

I scanned the comments and realized most people weren’t seeming to see why exactly bungie, and it would seem probable, 343, turned the autos into garbage guns over the years.

The answer is simple: MLG. MLG took the Halo community and the game’s popularity and gaming relevance to even greater heights. They don’t approve of autos simply. So they kept getting nerfed further and will continue to be.

Some people keep referring to autos needing to be strong in their close range niche, better in killing power in that range than utility midrange guns like the dmr br. This to preserve Halo’s ro-sham-bo identity. That’s just the thing. MLG doesn’t believe in ro-sham-bo.

Aiming smaller reticule guns takes more skill, at all ranges. MLG players are the console world’s best aimers. They want their aiming prowess to be the deciding factor in every battle encounter at all ranges. Utility weapons that trump the rest of the sandbox at all ranges suit them just fine since they will never be able to be killed by someone with less skill (at least one on one).

Lesser skilled players have the ability to effectively aim larger reticule weapons. One on one against an MLG player who has been forced to only use a large reticule auto rifle against a lesser aiming-skilled player who is competent with a large reticule auto rifle, causes the MLG player to be in much greater danger of being defeated.

Simply put, aiming and strafing prowess diminishes in supreme importance in close range battles where reticule size is larger. If large reticule auto rifles can kill faster than utility rifles in the close range arena, MLG (and other players that are the gaming gods of small reticule aiming skill) will no longer have their reign of terror extend to all ranges of combat encounters. Their glorious might will only be evidenced in mid/long range encounters.

In order to leave pathetic n00bs little to no recourse when they are outmatched in aiming battle, by using tactics to draw better players to the lower skilled, close range region, and picking up “cheap” auto rifle kills, the auto rifles are nerfed to render them useless even in their intended range, allowing MLG and l33t players to never suffer the indignity of defeat by lesser mortals.

If auto’s dominate in close range, even the skilled mighty will fall if they stubbornly use mid-range weapons there. They will be forced to use close range weapons in close range, yet alas, even then their kill death ratio will suffer b/c they will be only slightly more adept then the irksome n00b in the n00b’s close range element.

I assure you all, this is why we can’t have nice autos.

COUNTER POINT:

Upon further debate;
I will say that the pistol of CE, while being the absolute best and most dominant in all ranges utility gun ever, did seem in play less OP while fighting within the intended range of the autos.

Why? I realize now that it was b/c of shorter kill times across the board, which actually left a smaller margin of error to capitalize on the utility pistol’s greater power at close range. So really faster kill times for every weapon would mean that skilled use of a do-it-all utility weapon would not invalidate the purpose of using capable close range autos.

Bungie broke the game by wanting longer kill times, which MLG would never want. That decision was made in error to give n00bs a chance. I suppose this could be damning evidence against my original premise. oops

2

You assure us all, but you’re wrong regardless. The competitive community would be more than happy to have a sandbox where automatic weapons, too, serve a purpose. You see, it doesn’t really matter if the automatics do their job in their own niche. In fact, that’d be a good thing if they did. What matters is that the concept of utility weapon remains. However, there is nothing going against it by having automatics that are powerful enough in their own range.

The reality of the situation is, had the competitive community and MLG truly been listened, we wouldn’t be having this sandbox where 90% of weapons are redundant at best and only a fraction are competitively viable. Instead, we could be enjoying a sandbox where each weapon serves their own purpose and has their own niche and accomplishes their own purpose.

In other words: your argument is completely wrong for two reasons: 1) MLG has absolutely nothing against automatics 2) MLG has never had that much of an impact in the development of Halo games.

3

I love the sandbox of Halo 3. Every weapon is perfectly fine in it’s niche. It’s just that the noobs, almost everyone actually, expect the 50’s knows how to use them. Just to name a few; Kamikazi, B11, Griminal, Personnel, Goodhand, Ssyphon; every good player that plays, uses every weapon they can find.

Kamikaze once wrote on his bio (Griminal and Kamikaze, voted best doubles team 09/10/11 in Halo 3)by: I will camp with the mauler, use double plasma rifle, and use the ghost, just to win.

Doesn’t that automatically mean the weapons are good? If he have to use them, to win?

4

Wait what?

I dissaprove your logic

5

> You assure us all, but you’re wrong regardless. The competitive community would be more than happy to have a sandbox where automatic weapons, too, serve a purpose. You see, it doesn’t really matter if the automatics do their job in their own niche. In fact, that’d be a good thing if they did. What matters is that the concept of utility weapon remains. However, there is nothing going against it by having automatics that are powerful enough in their own range.
>
> The reality of the situation is, had the competitive community and MLG truly been listened, we wouldn’t be having this sandbox where 90% of weapons are redundant at best and only a fraction are competitively viable. Instead, we could be enjoying a sandbox where each weapon serves their own purpose and has their own niche and accomplishes their own purpose.
>
> In other words: your argument is completely wrong for two reasons: 1) MLG has absolutely nothing against automatics 2) MLG has never had that much of an impact in the development of Halo games.

well, its a theory, I assure you. In all seriousness every person that argues against a competent group of auto weapons uses the fear of utility weapon users failing to win out at close range. Slavish devotion to utility only play was invented by MLG and copied by others. So what I’m saying isn’t completely absurd. Just a little.

No they don’t control development, and actually I agree they’d probably have found a solid balance if allowed to, but changes seem to have been implemented faultily to appease the utility mindset.

I think the problem could be solved by making kill times only slightly faster or equal for autos at close range, with a deeper mag, high ROF so that running around and spraying for the kill at that distance BECOMES MUCH EASIER due to the the way the gun handles, more than pure power. So technically skill could trump weapon choice even then.

6

> I love the sandbox of Halo 3. Every weapon is perfectly good in it’s niche. It’s just that the noobs, almost everyone actually, expect the 50’s knows how to use them. Just to name a few; Kamikazi, B11, Griminal, Personnel, Goodhand, Ssyphon; every good player that plays, uses every weapon they can find.
>
> Kamikaze once wrote on his bio (Griminal and Kamikaze, voted best doubles team 09/10/11 in Halo 3)by: I will camp with the mauler, use double plasma rifle, and use the ghost, just to win.
>
> Doesn’t that automatically mean the weapons are good? If he have to use them, to win?

Halo 3 sandbox had good niche weapons? No, it simply didn’t. The only reason I can think of why you’d want to use an AR, PR, SMG or Spiker in the game was because you had no other option. BR beats each of these at any range except point blank easily. The only one of these that could have an advantage over BR at some range is PR, even then only as a weapon that takes out shields and then you go for melee which, frankly, is extremely dangerous and something you don’t really want to do except as a last resort.

7

> MLG players are the console world’s best aimers.

Hahaha! I’m sorry, but I had to stop reading there.

8

gotta agree with tsassi on this one.

MLG have nothing against autos. The problem is, in every halo game to date, the autos have been useless. Thats not through MLGs chosing, as MLG has not had such say into the game. No, they’ve just been watching as the guns got worse. AR in halo 3 was a peice of crap, reachs was worse. Don’t get me started on how innefective the plasma rifle and spiker were.

The only good way to kill with half of halo 3s sandbox was to dual weild. Dual weilding isnt in halo 4, so unless 343 realises they need to raise the autos, then the autos will be left out again.

9

> well, its a theory, I assure you. In all seriousness every person that argues against a competent group of auto weapons uses the fear of utility weapon users failing to win out at close range. Slavish devotion to utility only play was invented by MLG and copied by others. So what I’m saying isn’t completely absurd. Just a little.
>
> No they don’t control development, and actually I agree they’d probably have found a solid balance if allowed to, but changes seem to have been implemented faultily to appease the utility mindset.
>
> I think the problem could be solved by making kill times only slightly faster or equal for autos at close range, with a deeper mag, high ROF so that running around and spraying for the kill at that distance BECOMES MUCH EASIER due to the the way the gun handles, more than pure power. So technically skill could trump weapon choice even then.

In fact, if you look at the history of Halo, Bungie was always working for the removal of the utility weapon. In fact, if my memory serves, I believe I have heard them saying that they don’t want there to be “a single dominant weapon in the sandbox”. In fact, you can see the pattern:

Halo 2: Magnum replaced with BR, kills slower and has a large spread, spread removed in patch after player feedback.

Halo 3: BR kept, kill time extended from Halo 2, spread added back.

Reach: BR replaced with DMR, kills with five shots instead of four, has bloom and generally slower kill time.

Bungie were effectively working for the removal of the utility weapon. However, the reason they never quite succeded at that is because they were doing the wrong things. First of all, they had too weak automatics, all the time. They had these slow killing automatics maybe to make the player not feel like they had been killed in an instant. However, another reason why they never managed to suppress the utility weapon is because it doesn’t work like that. When your automatics only work at close range and your game mostly consists of mid to long range combat, the precision weapons are bound to be more useful in combat. This is unpreventable in a game like Halo. Bungie were doing an impossible task while at the same time trying to break their own game.

The whole problem could be solved by giving us high-powered automatics like the CE AR or weapons with unique usage like the CE PR with plasma stun. All automatics should also have a reticle that allows burst firing at mid range to be possible. However, I always feel like the developers are afraid of giving us high-powered weapons and that’s why we are still stuck with an AR that loses to a DMR in close range combat. So, instead of nerfing the utilities, let’s buff the automatics.

10

While I agree ,given their playstyle, MLG probably wouldn’t use autos even if they were pretty good, I don’t think its their fault they aren’t.

11

> > I love the sandbox of Halo 3. Every weapon is perfectly good in it’s niche. It’s just that the noobs, almost everyone actually, expect the 50’s knows how to use them. Just to name a few; Kamikazi, B11, Griminal, Personnel, Goodhand, Ssyphon; every good player that plays, uses every weapon they can find.
> >
> > Kamikaze once wrote on his bio (Griminal and Kamikaze, voted best doubles team 09/10/11 in Halo 3)by: I will camp with the mauler, use double plasma rifle, and use the ghost, just to win.
> >
> > Doesn’t that automatically mean the weapons are good? If he have to use them, to win?
>
> Halo 3 sandbox had good niche weapons? No, it simply didn’t. The only reason I can think of why you’d want to use an AR, PR, SMG or Spiker in the game was because you had no other option. BR beats each of these at any range except point blank easily. The only one of these that could have an advantage over BR at some range is PR, even then only as a weapon that takes out shields and then you go for melee which, frankly, is extremely dangerous and something you don’t really want to do except as a last resort.

When I speak, I talk about playlists, like Ts and Dubs especially. MLG works quite differently.

The weapons aren’t that good themselves, but combined other things they are quite powerful.

Ask yourself. Where does the most fighting take place on Guardian for example? Blue, Gold, S3, Green, and less on top mid - at least in high level gameplay. All the rooms so far, are quite small, where the niche weapons works very well.

Sometimes I have most kills with the BR, sometimes the AR. If a player uses the map to their advantage, something not many players do, but the best ones, the weapons become pretty good. For example, it is much easier to use niche and cover than it is to use the BR and cover. You hide, pop out and then dip into view again goes much faster with the AR, than you do with the BR.

Any good player will always pick up equipment, such as bubble shield and Regen. They should always also use them when the opponent is pretty close to them, like, in a push. If the enemies are far away, they should try in instant to find a route to escape instead. Again, close up the niche weapons are better than the BR.

However, on big maps like Valhalla and Sandtrap, and without equipment, the niche weapons aren’t that good. Again, many were made for close combat, and made to work with equipments right?

12

> > MLG players are the console world’s best aimers.
>
> Hahaha! I’m sorry, but I had to stop reading there.

Who is better at aiming? You?

13

I think some people here have been fooled by their perception. you see, the AR in halo 3 was actually very good if you knew how to use. see when I used it I would try to stay in close range areas. I also changed my control scheme to boxer to give me a melee advantage. Also knowing how to close the gap between you and another player is important.

14

> Who is better at aiming? You?

Of course he is. Neo Kaiser is the best player in the world, it’s just that no one is aware of it yet.

15

> I think some people here have been fooled by their perception. you see, the AR in halo 3 was actually very good if you knew how to use.

Very true. In any high-level play on default settings, good players would almost always switch to their AR secondary for a close-quarters battle.

16

> > well, its a theory, I assure you. In all seriousness every person that argues against a competent group of auto weapons uses the fear of utility weapon users failing to win out at close range. Slavish devotion to utility only play was invented by MLG and copied by others. So what I’m saying isn’t completely absurd. Just a little.
> >
> > No they don’t control development, and actually I agree they’d probably have found a solid balance if allowed to, but changes seem to have been implemented faultily to appease the utility mindset.
> >
> > I think the problem could be solved by making kill times only slightly faster or equal for autos at close range, with a deeper mag, high ROF so that running around and spraying for the kill at that distance BECOMES MUCH EASIER due to the the way the gun handles, more than pure power. So technically skill could trump weapon choice even then.
>
> In fact, if you look at the history of Halo, Bungie was always working for the removal of the utility weapon. In fact, if my memory serves, I believe I have heard them saying that they don’t want there to be “a single dominant weapon in the sandbox”. In fact, you can see the pattern:
>
> Halo 2: Magnum replaced with BR, kills slower and has a large spread, spread removed in patch after player feedback.
>
> Halo 3: BR kept, kill time extended from Halo 2, spread added back.
>
> Reach: BR replaced with DMR, kills with five shots instead of four, has bloom and generally slower kill time.
>
> Bungie were effectively working for the removal of the utility weapon. However, the reason they never quite succeded at that is because they were doing the wrong things. First of all, they had too weak automatics, all the time. They had these slow killing automatics maybe to make the player not feel like they had been killed in an instant. However, another reason why they never managed to suppress the utility weapon is because it doesn’t work like that. When your automatics only work at close range and your game mostly consists of mid to long range combat, the precision weapons are bound to be more useful in combat. This is unpreventable in a game like Halo. Bungie were doing an impossible task while at the same time trying to break their own game.
>
> The whole problem could be solved by giving us high-powered automatics like the CE AR or weapons with unique usage like the CE PR with plasma stun. All automatics should also have a reticle that allows burst firing at mid range to be possible. However, I always feel like the developers are afraid of giving us high-powered weapons and that’s why we are still stuck with an AR that loses to a DMR in close range combat. So, instead of nerfing the utilities, let’s buff the automatics.

Its true they did take measures to nerf the utility guns, but only in the context of, as you admit, the auto guns being nerfed as well. So basically the utility guns stayed dominant, because while making utilities less effective in kill times, auto kill times sunk with them. So how does that invalidate my belief in the utility gun bias?

But I will say that the pistol of CE, while being the absolute best and most dominant in all ranges utility gun ever, did seem in play less OP while fighting within the intended range of the autos.

Why? I realize now that it was b/c of shorter kill times across the board, which actually left a smaller margin of error to capitalize on the utility pistol’s greater power at close range. So really faster kill times for every weapon would mean that skilled use of a do-it-all utility weapon would not invalidate the purpose of using capable close range autos.

Bungie broke the game by wanting longer kill times, which MLG would never want. That decision was made in error to give n00bs a chance. I suppose this could be damning evidence against my original premise. oops

17

> > I think some people here have been fooled by their perception. you see, the AR in halo 3 was actually very good if you knew how to use.
>
> Very true. In any high-level play on default settings, good players would almost always switch to their AR secondary for a close-quarters battle.

Have to agree. It’s just dat sound was…meh…

18

> > Who is better at aiming? You?
>
> Of course he is. Neo Kaiser is the best player in the world, it’s just that no one is aware of it yet.

I don’t wanna get perma-banned for stat-flaming on him so I’m not going to say anything. -_-

19

> > > I think some people here have been fooled by their perception. you see, the AR in halo 3 was actually very good if you knew how to use.
> >
> > Very true. In any high-level play on default settings, good players would almost always switch to their AR secondary for a close-quarters battle.
>
> Have to agree. It’s just dat sound was…meh…

And 4-shotting anyone up close was always a billion % more satisfying :stuck_out_tongue:

20

> > > > I think some people here have been fooled by their perception. you see, the AR in halo 3 was actually very good if you knew how to use.
> > >
> > > Very true. In any high-level play on default settings, good players would almost always switch to their AR secondary for a close-quarters battle.
> >
> > Have to agree. It’s just dat sound was…meh…
>
> And 4-shotting anyone up close was always a billion % more satisfying :stuck_out_tongue:

Oh yes XD