This has been an avid discussion between my friends and I. We’ve done a couple of observations back and forth, which include noticing the spread is incredibly little to none as opposed to Reach. You could say this is due to the higher rate of fire in Reach, although firing slowly in both games still shows the same results. Personally, I go back and forth between my opinion on it. There are times where I feel the DMR is alright and balanced, and other times where it proves overused and too precise for a weapon of that damage and range.
So, can somebody give me their side and a good back up as to why? A lot of people beyond my friends go as far to say that it’s so close to being a power weapon it isn’t funny.
The DMR has a superior range to the BR and seems to be more reliable than the LR. But i guess it should because its a semi auto weapon.
But its also just as good up close as the BR, in competent hands of course, and is easy to “spam” yet hit every shot on target. Much different than reach with its bloom.
Ive thought about what choices could best balance it and i think an increased bloom would work best. A middle ground between how it is now and reach.
This makes the user place his shots more carefully up close and allows it to keep its huge range while still making you fire at a slightly paced speed. But that’s just my solution.
> Only weapon that needs a small change is the AR…can kill from a great distance…needs to be shortened up, this IMO. Other weapons work well
It’s actually quite difficult at long ranges when the enemy usually has a BR/DMR. Now, at medium to short range with bursts, it can prove deadly. Though I don’t mind it too much because typically people spam it, and it’s easy to avoid the shots.
Too much bullet magnetism on the DMR, reduce it by a lot and you’ll suddenly see it become less used in CQC.
Oh yeah, and DO NOT ADD BLOOM OR SPREAD! Bloom and spread can actually make the weapon weaker at long range and easier at close as you’re aiming a larger reticle or can get lucky with spread. This made Sniper’s in Reach, and Halo 3 to a lesser extent, very annoying to deal with. It also made/makes games very slow paced. Finally, I will state that it is not the DMR, but the maps themselves.
Remember, Ragnarok was from Halo 3 and was designed with an inaccurate reticle in mind.
The problem is there are too many “open field” maps, where you have sightlines on much of the map from one spot. This caused lots of camping and actually made vehicles weaker since the infantry could easily hole up in their cover spots that are difficult for vehicles to get into and put shots into said vehicles from most of the map. We need “Arena BTB” maps, with more corners, floors, and pathways. Asphalt with less vehicles and perhaps more broken up hallways would work very well for BTB.
Finally, not only is Slayer bland, but Objectives are even worse on “open field” maps since you have no cover as a carrier and only have a few pathways that have it, making your route too predictable on foot. It doesn’t help that you now have a giant waypoint over your head when carrying the flag. This means that the only way to really score the Objective is to get in a vehicle, which take a while to spawn and often randoms don’t even have that level of coordination (and often drive Warthogs with no Gunners or Passengers to the other team’s base.
A map like Asphalt or one with less distance on foot between bases wouldn’t have this problem, as you either get a shorter run back or more corners and cover to escape your opponents shots.
Please all you fools are saying to add bloom? Did you see the Reach forums back in the day? Bloom is the single handed reason Reach was a worse game that H3 IMO
I think the DMR is fine as it is. The problem being, as Shanez1215 said, is the maps, seeing as the vast majority of them are open. The BR and DMR are balanced when used in their ranges, the problem is the maps tend to be too big, thus swaying to the DMR and giving it more power on the map. Maps like Adrift and Haven, are maps that sway to BR because they’re smaller and tighter.
Dmr actually ruins the whole game in my opinion. People just sit back and spam people with their mini snipers, get a binary rifle from their ordinance repeat.
Im a DMR user, and I dont want to be. But in almost every game I play, unless I take a DMR im going to go negative with my k/d because most people take the DMR.
Yes its way way to good. Imo its simply a matter of RoF with the weapon. Its far far to easy to outshoot a BR or even an AR at medium/short range. CQB its not as difficult to counter it, but getting there is a helluva task. The RoF is almost identical to a BR but with more damage per shot. Its frankly a no brainer to use it, especially with the extreme nature of the aim-assist.
Defo needs a nerf. And Im never one normally to say that kind of thing. Hell I even disagreed to start with and though it was fine. But now…its definately OP no questions about it, no discussion to be had.
The only thing that needs to be change with the dmr is the ability to stay zoomed in. Staying zoomed in and not getting knocked out of your scope when you get shot allows you to be very accurate over long distance. Instead of 5 or 6 shot kills it will take 8 or 10 shot kills unzoomed. It will also force people to push out and close distance for a better shot.
Maybe lower the rate of fire just enough so that it’s still viable in mid-long to long-range engagements, but less effective in the BR’s ideal range and in shorter range?
I would like to see the DMR’s rate of fire decreased, to highlight its role at long range. It absolutely DESTROYS the BR at long range as it should. The problem is that it’s better at medium range and just as potent at close range as the BR. The DMR treads into the BR’s short range - short/medium range territory too much, making the DMR straight up superior.
Decrease its rate of fire, it retains its advantage in long range while losing to the BR at close range (as it should on paper, not as it does currently).