Perhaps no other members of the community agree with me on this, but I believe that weapon “balance” isn’t a state of every weapon being equally viable for every player, but rather every weapon having a purpose.
There’s a great deal of talk about making automatic weapons more useful, but I feel that this completely misses the point of those weapons. In Halo, automatic weapons have traditionally been weapons that are intended for new players. They’ve never been particularly powerful, but they offer a very simple learning curve. Their “balancing” factor - their reason for existing - is to provide a reasonable means of learning the game. This doesn’t mean “it is easy to get kills with the AR,” only that automatic weapons are generally easier for new players to learn.
The dominance of precision weapons has been an issue for some players, but I feel that the problem with precision weapons is neither their kill times nor their perceived superiority to automatics - it is the context in which they were presented in Halo 4. In previous games, maps were considerably smaller, and combat more often occurred within the effective range of automatic weapons. In addition to this, Halo 4 featured absurd amounts of aim assistance - beating an AR user with a BR at close range was no longer dependent on having absolutely perfect aim, but rather simply shooting because your reticule aims for you.
I see no problem with precision weapons being better than automatic weapons in every numerically quantifiable way - the automatic weapons have the advantage of being simpler weapons to use. This is also the reason that I see no issue with the fact that, on paper, the Sniper Rifle is a far superior weapon to any of the precision weapons, as it can provide four instant kills per clip at any range - it’s just up to the player to have the skill necessary to use that capability.
Nope. Having otherwise useless weapons for the sake of giving bad players an easy weapon to shoot is a bad idea.
If the precision weapons are to be the all-around… Then autos need a niche they excel in.
> Nope. Having otherwise useless weapons for the sake of giving bad players an easy weapon to shoot is a bad idea.
>
> If the precision weapons are to be the all-around… Then autos need a niche they excel in.
The autos typically excel at ambushing an enemy player at close range. Due to how easy they are to aim, the enemy has a lower chance of successfully outstrafing the person with the automatic, compared to if the person shooting had a sniper or a BR.
As opposed to shotgun or sword? They’re second rate in that situation.
Not every weapon can have a niche in which it sits nicely for all levels of play.
The automatics and precision weapons fall into the same niche of “general use” or “utility” weapons. The precision weapons are generally more powerful, but harder to use effectively. The automatics generally make up for their deficiencies by being easier weapons to understand.
Should the sniper just be removed from the game? As it stands, if put in the hands of the correct player, it can beat every weapon at every range.
The precision weapons serve the same purpose as automatic weapons - they simply trade some ease of use for more power.
> As opposed to shotgun or sword? They’re second rate in that situation.
Those are power weapons and are weapons that 1 or maximum 2 people have at once (except in 4). Autos excel at close range with minimum aim required that is their niche.
No. The sense of balance you’re referring to is a problem in on itself.
The automatics are treated as beginner weapons which is a destructive, useless and pointless concept and the automatics really suffer as a result of it.
The automatics should be able to be just as powerful as the other rifles and require just as much skill.
The idea that we need beginner weapons is just ridiculous. We have campaign along with the other PvE game modes, along casual game types and private matches so that new players can get a feel for the game. If that’s not enough then they should add new features to help new players instead screwing with the sand box. How does a player learning how to use the AR make them more prepared for the rest of the sandbox anyway? If anything it just makes the game more difficult for them because they’re gonna get thrown out of their comfort zone every time they pick up a weapon that requires more skill.
There’s no reason why the automatics couldn’t accomplish the objective of their niche while also being a powerful and skillful weapon.
And speaking of the automatics niche I think you’ve got the wrong idea here.The AR and BR don’t occupy the same niche as utility weapons. In fact after Halo 4 the DMR isn’t even in the same niche as the BR. The AR’s lack of range takes a away in aspect of utility it might have.
When it comes to the three rifle types there’s:
-Close range rifles like the AR and SR.
-Medium range/utility rifles like the BR and CC.
-And long range rifles like the DMR and LR.
But the BR’s superiority gets in the way the AR achieving it’s function and that is a major problem. If steps are taken to put the AR on the BR’s level in terms of power and effectiveness the problem will be solved.
A sub class of worthless weapons is not a good thing for the sandbox. Grouping any ‘auto’ weapon into the same class is also not a good thing for the sandbox.
We should be actively encouraging a diverse sandbox where all weapons are useful when used appropriately. In pretty much every game form H2-H4 the auto weapons have all filled the same bullet hose niche and with the exception of Halo 4, they were all terrible. Automatics need to play differently and not all be limited to the same bullet hose archetype.
The auto weapons in Halo 4 were actually pretty good, but as bullet hoses they are inherently limited to close range. There is no need to make a a bullet hose completely inferior simply because it is easier to use.
The skill gap doesn’t take any major hit because it is easy to exploit niche weapons using utility weapons(in additon to grenades/melee). In a battle between players of equal skill a niche weapon should win when it is used in proper situations.
Aiming skill is only one part of the skill gap in a game like Halo. Of course it is important, but knowing how and when to use the different parts of the sandbox, in any given situation is also important.
As far as ‘noob’ weapons go, there is no reason to bend over backwards to create one. Matchmaking should be the thing that matches new players, not what weapon they use. I have no issue including a weapon like the CE or H4 ARs as long as they are accompanied by a utility weapon.
If you really want to ease new players in then give them a weapon that can be useful when used effectively. Let them find success in at least one area, and let them grow through experimentation and practice. If you give them a second class ‘noob’ weapon that can be out shot with a precision weapon no matter what they do, then they have no base to build upon. You simply create a divide between ‘new’ and ‘old’ players that is very unwelcoming.
That sort of setup is not good for growth or the long term health of any game.
If there’s one thing that 343 did decent on in Halo 4 multiplayer it was trying to make the automatic weapons viable to use against the other primary weapons. I don’t think the question is if the automatics are effective enough. I think it is what hurdles are in the way of automatics from performing their niche. I think AmeriCandian Gamer got it pretty much perfect in his video:
Are Automatic Weapons Too Weak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzxthTmwNwc
In this case, shouldn’t the Sniper Rifle be removed entirely? It breaks every weapon’s “niche,” after all.
> Not every weapon can have a niche in which it sits nicely for all levels of play.
>
> The automatics and precision weapons fall into the same niche of “general use” or “utility” weapons. The precision weapons are generally more powerful, but harder to use effectively. The automatics generally make up for their deficiencies by being easier weapons to understand.
>
> Should the sniper just be removed from the game? As it stands, if put in the hands of the correct player, it can beat every weapon at every range.
>
> The precision weapons serve the same purpose as automatic weapons - they simply trade some ease of use for more power.
How is it any easier? Spam the body until the shield pops and then hit the head is a very easy concept to grasp. Anyone wanting to actually be good in previous Halo games got the concept down. It is so easy, and effective than using Automatics, that people would constantly vote BR. This isn’t skill. It’s easy mode.
Making the Autos crap because they don’t follow the same rules as precision weapons don’t make sense in any sort of design. All it would do is encourage others to use the precision weapons because they are the only thing worth learning to use. Having anything that just sucks is going to be left ignored. Why did the Shade Turrets got removed on Longbow shortly after being implemented? They were terrible. The same goes for anyone’s opinion when it comes to the AR in Halo 3 and Reach: It sucked. So they dropped them whenever they can get the chance.
To have any real resemblence of balance, there needs to be definitions of the phrases: Close Range, Medium Range, and Long Range. It needs to be an actual number, not a variable. If there is to be any sort of balance, those phrases needs to be answered by the devs themselves in a more specific level. Afterwards, balance the two types of weapons accordingly, and then build maps upon that concept to make better maps.
> In this case, shouldn’t the Sniper Rifle be removed entirely? It breaks every weapon’s “niche,” after all.
Power Weapons take those rules, chews them up, and spit them back on your face. Then stab you.
They break that rule because they are needed to encourage map movement. If there wasn’t any, smarter teams would camp at an easy to defend location on the map.
Obviously not all weapons are going to be equally useful in every situation.
Having a weak and easy weapon doesn’t fill any meaningful purpose though.
Assuming all players are decent, it just ends up being a useless gun.
The Shotgun is easy, but because of its power it still fulfills a purpose.
The question is if the AR is weak or not.
The other question is, assuming it’s strong, is its skill in proportion with its strength?
> How is it any easier? Spam the body until the shield pops and then hit the head is a very easy concept to grasp. Anyone wanting to actually be good in previous Halo games got the concept down. It is so easy, and effective than using Automatics, that people would constantly vote BR. This isn’t skill. It’s easy mode.
“Battle Rifle is easy because the concept of shooting people is easy to grasp.”
Does the same somehow not apply to the Assault Rifle? If anything Assault Rifle is easier by this logic because it doesn’t require the “hit the head” step.
The AR vs BR debate isn’t about ‘grasping concepts’, it’s about the difficulty of aim and tactical applications each possesses.
> “Battle Rifle is easy because the concept of shooting people is easy to grasp.”
>
> Does the same somehow not apply to the Assault Rifle? If anything Assault Rifle is easier by this logic because it doesn’t require the “hit the head” step.
>
> The AR vs BR debate isn’t about ‘grasping concepts’, it’s about the difficulty of aim and tactical applications each possesses.
It replaces the “Hit the Head” rule with making sure your gun’s reticle doesn’t get too big and spray bullets around the target instead of on the target. Again, just because it doesn’t follow the precision weapons’ rules doesn’t mean it is an easier gun to use. It is much more easier to miss with the AR by holding the trigger down too long on a distant target(related the AR) than it is to miss the target completely on the BR.
You are thinking of missing by not pointing the gun at the target. The AR can still miss if the person holds the trigger for too long, even if the gun is pointed dead on the target after 2 or 3 bullets, depending on how far the target is. Bigger reticle does not mean bigger bullets. Again, the concept does not translate between the two types of weaponry. My argument is that not only is the difficulty of aim and tactical application issue, but also that the payoff is not equal for both types due to their respective difficulties.
Making the AR the default crap gun to throw away only encourages BR/DMR/<Insert Shiny New Go-To-Gun to have a Fair Match> Starts not because of a test of skill, but to have a decent multiplayer game going. BR vs. BR is a test of skill. BR vs AR. is easy mode in favor of the BR.
I’m not sure that is a good role for the AR. Arguably a ‘you can shoot anything you see’ weapon is an easier concept to grasp. It’s quite hard to do well with an AR. Making the AR the beginner weapon can be quite punishing for new players, making the AR the sole starting weapon for example provides very little counterplay opportunities against longer ranged weapons, it can lead to some very negative experiences of being dominated by the other team. The starting weapon providing few escape options to the player. It doesn’t exactly make Halo more accessible.
And even then, does every single damn Automatic have to fill the same role?