Wonder Why Players hate the Gun Balance? Heres why

Now, let me start off with the weapon sandbox of previous halo games ( halo 1 - reach ), in a nutshell :

  • One main , dominant, easy to use weapon, that is hard to master when killing other players that also have the same weapon. In halo 1, this was the pistol. In halo 2 and 3, this was the Battle Rifle. In halo reach, this was the Dmr. - If you wearn’t skilled enough to use these weapons, you have to resort to weapons that are vey easy to use, easy to master, but are laughable in firepower, compared to that one dominant weapon. In halo 1, this was everything but the pistol. In halo 2 3, this was the smg / assualt rifle.Due to the sandbox of these games, the majoriy of players simply preferred to play gamemodes which consisted in Br / Dmr Starts, and the reason for that is straight foward ; in a ar / smg start gametype, if the other team acquires that one dominant weapon before yours, your out of luck. As a side note, combatting power weapons would be very difficult, and isnt always worth the struggle.

Furthermore, No matter what the gametype, however, every map had weapon variety that was insignificant because of how outclassed pick - up weapons (excluding power weapons) were against the one dominant weapon.

Now, lets talk about the halo 5 weapon sandbox.

And no, I am not going to bash on it.

  • Weapons are now near - perfectly balanced. The assualt rifle is now a viable weapon against a precision weapon, including the Battle Rifle and Magnum for example, in close to almost - mid range ; the same range the assualt rifle fell short against in the previous halo titles mentioned at the start of this post ( halo 1 - reach ). However, a perfect kill from a precision weapon, firing at its highest rate of fire, will always defeat an assualt rifle, although this dosent arguably quite happen unless a match is of higher level play. - Weapons that were considered useless, are now … Useful. The plasma rifle, or should i say , the Storm Rifle, is now a great weapon, for example, having the lowest time to kill of all automatics, even out - pacing the precision weapons, in close to almost - mid range. - Automatic weapons are essentially powerful up to close to almost mid - range. This is considered perfect. Anywhere longer than that, then the automatic weapon, such as the smg, will be beaten by a precision weapon.Weapon variety, is now significantly increased, due to virtually every non - precision weapon being able to match, in some cases prevail, against what used to be that one dominant weapon. Assualt rifle start gametypes now promote weapon variety, which has been what these types of gametypes are for. They had little meaning in the previous halo games. Now, they do .

The problem that a significant amount of players have (and i say significant, because this is a common complaint in arena matchmaking ), is that many players adored the weapon sandbox of halo 1 - reach, and are displeased to see automatic weapons being able to persistently outkill a precision weapon in close to near - mid range, as this was almost never the case in previous halo titles. This explains the immense complaints on automatic weapons in halo 5 mulitiplayer. Also, it explains why some players view this game as taking less skill, because there isnt that one dominant weapon you had to be good with. It is the weapom balance formula which most veteran halo players liked, and what made halo gunplay unique and interesting.

I say “veteran” halo players because this consisted of those who’s first halo game was from halo 1 - reach , arguably just halo 1 - 3 . And apparantly, most of the player fanbase are veterans, having been played halo as late as halo 3 - reach, as early as halo 1, and are still interested in the franchise. Im proud to be one of them (:

To these types of players, this popular concept they grew up with is thrown out the window and replaced with a more modern, typical based gun balanced sandbox that many other games on the market share. They prefer the old halo gun balance

To other types of players that have are relatively new to halo, have started playing for a few years, or players from halo 1 - reach that adored weapon variety and disliked the old weapon sandbox, they prefer halo 5’s gun balance, and theres nothing wrong with anyones opinion.

I suggest a playlist that caters to the old halo weapon sandbox, while other playlist will remain unaffected.

This way, both sides of players preferring their style of gun balance are equally satisfied without having both to play something the other half dosent like. In this case, this would be players who prefer the one dominant weapon sandbox , playing halo 5’s completely diffierent weapon sandbox, and vice versa.

And please, dont suggest " learn to adapt ", as halo reach had a playlist ( team slayer pro ) which excluded armor abilities, which was a significant part of the game, that a great amount of players liked, and disliked, which is a direct relation to the gun balance of halo 5, compared to halo 1 - reach, with two sides into this ; one favoring the other, as to reach , with one side favoring armor abilities, as an example.

And also, dont suggest " play the mcc ", as it is in a rather poor state in terms of playability, lets not dig into that.

And as a player that is favored for halo 1 - reach sandbox, and has also been playing halo ever since halo 1, as many players have, please do not suggest “get better at the game”.

I have a 1.4k/d in arena as an onyx player against others in that tier. I have hit onyx in slayer , team arena and ffa at least once in the past few seasons every time, except last season , havent played for a month , and preseason, so please, dont think of judging anyones player skill and relate it to their post, no matter the player, it is rude.

Anyways, thank you for reading this post, it was rather long, and i appreiciate the time spent you gave. Feel welcome to share your opinions on this matter. Thank you once again, have a good one!

Pocket DMR. That is all that really needs to be said if we’re going to talk starting weapon balance. I think many will agree that it is far too viable.

Are you suggesting that they make a separate playlist, with completely different weapon balancing? To cater to the people who want the Br to be the best gun in the game? I can’t see that happening at all. It would take so much work. I’ve been playing the series since Halo 2, and MP since Halo 3, and I hated the fact that some weapons were completely useless. (Looking at you H3 Magnum) Balance was never a strong point of the early Halo games. Having useless weapons means that the sandbox isn’t balanced. Every Halo before 5 had this issue, and the closest thing to a weak weapon would probably be the Hydra, but I may be wrong. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to discuss perfect kill times, which a lot of the anti-auto threads forget. Changing the weapons balance for one playlist would be very difficult, and time consuming, and I would rather them direct their energies elsewhere. The armor abilities were easy to disable in Reach, as it was already a custom game setting. ( I think, it’s been a while) Making an entirely new sandbox is not worth the effort.

I’m just going to ramble aimlessly a bit about some concepts relevant to game balance in general and how the apply to Halo, then probably duck out of the thread because I don’t have the patience for this -Yoink-.

Rock-Paper-Scissors: Strategy that revolves around certain items defeating (countering) other items.
Hard-Counters: Items that completely destroy other items in certain situations.
Soft-Counters: Items that give you an edge over other items in certain situations.
Risk (Skill)-Reward: The ratio of reward given to risk taken (or skill input required).

“Anti-Auto people don’t look at minimum killtimes.”
Yes, yes I do. I also look at effective killtimes. You can’t judge balance solely by on-paper theorycraft which is entirely separate from reality.

“All games have rock-paper-scissors gameplay.”
That’s a debatable statement, but what isn’t debatable is the fact not all games approach Rock-Paper-Scissors the same way.

Soft-Counter Relationship:
Halo Ce Assault Rifle versus Halo Ce Magnum in close quarters. The Ce Magnum has a minimum 3sk killtime of 0.6s. Yet it also has a 5sk Bodyshot killtime of 1.2s. Meanwhile the Assault Rifle has a consistent killtime of ~1.0s along with superior melee. Take into consideration it’s much easier to land all your bodyshots with an AR in CQC than it is to get a perfect three-headshot kill with the Magnum in the same range. So the Magnum user will be getting 5sk unless they are exceptionally skilled (or lucky). Thus the AR has the clear (killtime) advantage in this situation, but still has to work for the kill. Yet the potential for the Magnum user to win through superior, perfect aim still exists, which creates a skill-gap and rewards good play.

The Halo 5 Assault Rifle and Halo 5 Magnum also share this relationship to a degree, though it’s much more skewed in the Assault Rifle’s favor relative to Ce.

I could provide several other relationships (such as Utility Weapon and Sniper) and describe how they have shifted from soft-counter to hard-counter relationships, but the main focus of this thread is automatics so I won’t. I will say that “Power Weapons” didn’t really exist until Halo 2 exactly because of this shift.

Hard-Counter Relationship:
Halo 5 SMG versus Halo 5 Magnum in close quarters. It’s still much easier to land all your bodyshots within close range than it is to land a perfect-five shot. Yet even with a perfect five-shot the Magnum only kills in ~1.4s while the SMG kills in ~1.0s, and an imperfect 7sk bodyshot killtime is twice as slow. The SMG is practically guaranteed to win the battle unless they have god-awful aim, and there’s absolutely no room for the Magnum user to outplay the SMG user. The battle ultimately comes down to who had the best weapon, skill is rendered largely irrelevant.

Applying this mentality to other games:
-Most weapons in CoD are soft-counters to each other, there’s very few that absolutely shut down another weapon. Assault Rifles in that game are viable choices against Snipers in long-range due to their great ADS accuracy and variety of scope attachments. Conversely, people can slap ACOG’s on their Sniper Rifles and still be viable long-range weapons while standing a chance against Assault Rifles in medium range.
-The Pyro is a soft-counter to the Soldier in TF2. Pyros can reflect rockets and completely nullify the Soldier’s main weapon, but still have to contend with the Soldier’s other weapons.
-The Scout is a hard-counter to the Demoman in TF2. Demomen use slow projectile weapons only viable against slow classes, while Scouts are extremely fast and can run circles around Demomen in CQC while peppering them with their Shotguns. A Demoman must rely on his teammates to protect him from Scouts.
-The Engineer is a hard-counter to the Scout in TF2. A Scout’s shotgun is very ineffective at taking out Engineer sentry guns, and those sentries can track the Scout easily and shred his low HP. Scouts must rely on their teammates to take out sentries that impede their progress.
-In the two above scenarios Teamwork is important while Individual Skill doesn’t come into play at all.

Risk-Reward:
If a weapon is easier to use and more rewarding than it’s alternatives, then there’s no point in using those alternatives. Thus you always have to have a system of checks and balances in place.

Rockets are easy to use and very rewarding. So they’re limited to one per map and take a long time to spawn.
Automatics are very easy to use…so they are limited in firepower and/or range to prevent them from dominating everything else and make them less rewarding.
Snipers are hard to use…so they are given a lot of power and versatility to compensate, making them very rewarding in the right hands.

> 2533274819302824;4:
> I’m just going to ramble aimlessly a bit about some concepts relevant to game balance in general and how the apply to Halo, then probably duck out of the thread because I don’t have the patience for this -Yoink-.
>
> Rock-Paper-Scissors: Strategy that revolves around certain items defeating (countering) other items.
> Hard-Counters: Items that completely destroy other items in certain situations.
> Soft-Counters: Items that give you an edge over other items in certain situations.
> Risk (Skill)-Reward: The ratio of reward given to risk taken (or skill input required).
>
> “Anti-Auto people don’t look at minimum killtimes.”
> Yes, yes I do. I also look at effective killtimes. You can’t judge balance solely by on-paper theorycraft which is entirely separate from reality.
>
> “All games have rock-paper-scissors gameplay.”
> That’s a debatable statement, but what isn’t debatable is the fact not all games approach Rock-Paper-Scissors the same way.
>
> Soft-Counter Relationship:
> Halo Ce Assault Rifle versus Halo Ce Magnum in close quarters. The Ce Magnum has a minimum 3sk killtime of 0.6s. Yet it also has a 5sk Bodyshot killtime of 1.2s. Meanwhile the Assault Rifle has a consistent killtime of ~1.0s along with superior melee. Take into consideration it’s much easier to land all your bodyshots with an AR in CQC than it is to get a perfect three-headshot kill with the Magnum in the same range. So the Magnum user will be getting 5sk unless they are exceptionally skilled (or lucky). Thus the AR has the clear (killtime) advantage in this situation, but still has to work for the kill. Yet the potential for the Magnum user to win through superior, perfect aim still exists, which creates a skill-gap and rewards good play.
>
> The Halo 5 Assault Rifle and Halo 5 Magnum also share this relationship to a degree, though it’s much more skewed in the Assault Rifle’s favor relative to Ce.
>
> I could provide several other relationships (such as Utility Weapon and Sniper) and describe how they have shifted from soft-counter to hard-counter relationships, but the main focus of this thread is automatics so I won’t. I will say that “Power Weapons” didn’t really exist until Halo 2 exactly because of this shift.
>
> Hard-Counter Relationship:
> Halo 5 SMG versus Halo 5 Magnum in close quarters. It’s still much easier to land all your bodyshots within close range than it is to land a perfect-five shot. Yet even with a perfect five-shot the Magnum only kills in ~1.4s while the SMG kills in ~1.0s, and an imperfect 7sk bodyshot killtime is twice as slow. The SMG is practically guaranteed to win the battle unless they have god-awful aim, and there’s absolutely no room for the Magnum user to outplay the SMG user. The battle ultimately comes down to who had the best weapon, skill is rendered largely irrelevant.
>
> Applying this mentality to other games:
> -Most weapons in CoD are soft-counters to each other, there’s very few that absolutely shut down another weapon. Assault Rifles in that game are viable choices against Snipers in long-range due to their great ADS accuracy and variety of scope attachments. Conversely, people can slap ACOG’s on their Sniper Rifles and still be viable long-range weapons while standing a chance against Assault Rifles in medium range.
> -The Pyro is a soft-counter to the Soldier in TF2. Pyros can reflect rockets and completely nullify the Soldier’s main weapon, but still have to contend with the Soldier’s other weapons.
> -The Scout is a hard-counter to the Demoman in TF2. Demomen use slow projectile weapons only viable against slow classes, while Scouts are extremely fast and can run circles around Demomen in CQC while peppering them with their Shotguns. A Demoman must rely on his teammates to protect him from Scouts.
> -The Engineer is a hard-counter to the Scout in TF2. A Scout’s shotgun is very ineffective at taking out Engineer sentry guns, and those sentries can track the Scout easily and shred his low HP. Scouts must rely on their teammates to take out sentries that impede their progress.
> -In the two above scenarios Teamwork is important while Individual Skill doesn’t come into play at all.
>
> Risk-Reward:
> If a weapon is easier to use and more rewarding than it’s alternatives, then there’s no point in using those alternatives. Thus you always have to have a system of checks and balances in place.
>
> Rockets are easy to use and very rewarding. So they’re limited to one per map and take a long time to spawn.
> Automatics are very easy to use…so they are limited in firepower and/or range to prevent them from dominating everything else and make them less rewarding.
> Snipers are hard to use…so they are given a lot of power and versatility to compensate, making them very rewarding in the right hands.

Exactly buff the pistol and reduce aim assist further would make the game better

So your saying that people want a game with unbalanced weapons. I gotta say thats the first time i have heard of that

> 2533274819302824;4:
> I’m just going to ramble aimlessly a bit about some concepts relevant to game balance in general and how the apply to Halo, then probably duck out of the thread because I don’t have the patience for this -Yoink-.
>
> Rock-Paper-Scissors: Strategy that revolves around certain items defeating (countering) other items.
> Hard-Counters: Items that completely destroy other items in certain situations.
> Soft-Counters: Items that give you an edge over other items in certain situations.
> Risk (Skill)-Reward: The ratio of reward given to risk taken (or skill input required).
>
> “Anti-Auto people don’t look at minimum killtimes.”
> Yes, yes I do. I also look at effective killtimes. You can’t judge balance solely by on-paper theorycraft which is entirely separate from reality.
>
> “All games have rock-paper-scissors gameplay.”
> That’s a debatable statement, but what isn’t debatable is the fact not all games approach Rock-Paper-Scissors the same way.
>
> Soft-Counter Relationship:
> Halo Ce Assault Rifle versus Halo Ce Magnum in close quarters. The Ce Magnum has a minimum 3sk killtime of 0.6s. Yet it also has a 5sk Bodyshot killtime of 1.2s. Meanwhile the Assault Rifle has a consistent killtime of ~1.0s along with superior melee. Take into consideration it’s much easier to land all your bodyshots with an AR in CQC than it is to get a perfect three-headshot kill with the Magnum in the same range. So the Magnum user will be getting 5sk unless they are exceptionally skilled (or lucky). Thus the AR has the clear (killtime) advantage in this situation, but still has to work for the kill. Yet the potential for the Magnum user to win through superior, perfect aim still exists, which creates a skill-gap and rewards good play.
>
> The Halo 5 Assault Rifle and Halo 5 Magnum also share this relationship to a degree, though it’s much more skewed in the Assault Rifle’s favor relative to Ce.
>
> I could provide several other relationships (such as Utility Weapon and Sniper) and describe how they have shifted from soft-counter to hard-counter relationships, but the main focus of this thread is automatics so I won’t. I will say that “Power Weapons” didn’t really exist until Halo 2 exactly because of this shift.
>
> Hard-Counter Relationship:
> Halo 5 SMG versus Halo 5 Magnum in close quarters. It’s still much easier to land all your bodyshots within close range than it is to land a perfect-five shot. Yet even with a perfect five-shot the Magnum only kills in ~1.4s while the SMG kills in ~1.0s, and an imperfect 7sk bodyshot killtime is twice as slow. The SMG is practically guaranteed to win the battle unless they have god-awful aim, and there’s absolutely no room for the Magnum user to outplay the SMG user. The battle ultimately comes down to who had the best weapon, skill is rendered largely irrelevant.
>
> Applying this mentality to other games:
> -Most weapons in CoD are soft-counters to each other, there’s very few that absolutely shut down another weapon. Assault Rifles in that game are viable choices against Snipers in long-range due to their great ADS accuracy and variety of scope attachments. Conversely, people can slap ACOG’s on their Sniper Rifles and still be viable long-range weapons while standing a chance against Assault Rifles in medium range.
> -The Pyro is a soft-counter to the Soldier in TF2. Pyros can reflect rockets and completely nullify the Soldier’s main weapon, but still have to contend with the Soldier’s other weapons.
> -The Scout is a hard-counter to the Demoman in TF2. Demomen use slow projectile weapons only viable against slow classes, while Scouts are extremely fast and can run circles around Demomen in CQC while peppering them with their Shotguns. A Demoman must rely on his teammates to protect him from Scouts.
> -The Engineer is a hard-counter to the Scout in TF2. A Scout’s shotgun is very ineffective at taking out Engineer sentry guns, and those sentries can track the Scout easily and shred his low HP. Scouts must rely on their teammates to take out sentries that impede their progress.
> -In the two above scenarios Teamwork is important while Individual Skill doesn’t come into play at all.
>
> Risk-Reward:
> If a weapon is easier to use and more rewarding than it’s alternatives, then there’s no point in using those alternatives. Thus you always have to have a system of checks and balances in place.
>
> Rockets are easy to use and very rewarding. So they’re limited to one per map and take a long time to spawn.
> Automatics are very easy to use…so they are limited in firepower and/or range to prevent them from dominating everything else and make them less rewarding.
> Snipers are hard to use…so they are given a lot of power and versatility to compensate, making them very rewarding in the right hands.

I’m glad I read this. Pretty new to Halo 5 and I’ve been using the magnum in almost all situations because I don’t have good handle on the other weapons. Time for me to start using the assault rifle more.

I don’t like the weapon balance in H5 because the successful rock-paper-scissors of previous titles is thrown off by sprint, nerfing, and… lag? The early paper-rock-scissors approach didn’t make every weapon a viable attacking weapon, rather, some weapons were for offense and others were for defense (but most players didn’t understand that, so they just called the defensive weapons “useless”).

To understand what I’m saying, take a look at halo 2. If an enemy had gotten the sniper they generally couldn’t set up TOO far way on a map because maps weren’t as big, and maps weren’t as big because we didn’t have sprint. In this situation, when being pinned down by a sniper, the needler was the best weapon to counter it because the defender could get off a few shots in the general direction of the sniper and then take off running, because the needler maintained its homing ability at mid-long range. It was slow and easy to dodge, but it would cause a descope and give the defender the ability to get away. However, due to people being able to out-strafe the needler (as it was supposed to be originally), now the distance on the needler was nerfed and the firing rate and close-range homing was boosted to turn it into an offensive weapon. Now there’s nothing to counter the sniper at mid-long range when pinned.

As for the “… lag?”, I’m talking about certain encounters where the paper-rock-scissors worked in previous titles, but not anymore. I.e. when when the enemy had a sword, the best counter was a shotgun (because when the sword was shot during a lunge, the sword guy died and phased through the shotgunner, and the best shotgun counter was an SMG (just stay back a couple steps). However, now the sword and shotgun will both kill each other because the kill is determined by what the attacker sees on his screen, so the previous effectiveness is gone. And now that the shotgun has better range, the SMG is less useful against it.

Now the balance is completely different. EVERY weapon is an attacking weapon, and most of the high-end power weapons do not have situational counters. Rather, a faceoff is generally always won by the weapon with better DPS, and strategy changes from how a weapon is used, to what is used and how a person strafes.

Is this a bad thing? I dunno. But I prefer the older balance that required situational thought rather than looking exclusively to distance and DPS.

---------------------
TL;DR - Players don’t/didn’t understand that there used to be offensive and defensive weapons in the sandbox, so out of that ignorance they complained that the defensive weapons were useless. Now in H5 all we have are offensive weapons.
----------------------

the only time i get pissed off at H5’s sandbox is when i get cross-mapped by a random scrub auto-firing an assault rifle. the only thing i hate about the sandbox, is that the automatic weapons (except smg) can shoot across the map, near the likes of a BR.

I am a long term Halo player, been playing since the day Halo CE, one if the few things I don’t have an issue with in Halo 5 is weapon balance. The pistol is OP but honestly for the most part the game feels very balanced, every weapon gas a use now where as in previous games a lot of weapons felt very neglected.

No one hates weapon balance. Hell, the pro players have been wanting a more balanced sandbox long before Halo 5.

But let me make one thing clear: just because every weapon has an insanely fast kill time and can be used in almost all situations, does NOT mean the sandbox is balanced. That fact seems to be lost to many on the forums.

Halo 1 had the best sandbox as far as balance goes. Each weapon filled it’s intended purpose, but the utility weapon was powerful enough to punish mistakes in that use.

Halo 5, however, attempts to mimic this but is much much MUCH more forgiving.

Being killed by autos isn’t the problem
it’s being killed by autos from red bridge at blue bridge on coliseum that’s the problems
The autos preform a little too well at mid-long range

A game shouldn’t have any useless weapons. Now all weapons can generally get the job done.

> 2533274832130936;12:
> Being killed by autos isn’t the problem
> it’s being killed by autos from red bridge at blue bridge on coliseum that’s the problems
> The autos preform a little too well at mid-long range

Thrust a lot.

> 2533274807480458;14:
> > 2533274832130936;12:
> > Being killed by autos isn’t the problem
> > it’s being killed by autos from red bridge at blue bridge on coliseum that’s the problems
> > The autos preform a little too well at mid-long range
>
>
> Thrust a lot.

See thrusting isn’t a fix for the problem if anything thrust is part of the reasons why the autos received such a massive buff to begin with

> 2533274869777895;5:
> > 2533274819302824;4:
> > I’m just going to ramble aimlessly a bit about some concepts relevant to game balance in general and how the apply to Halo, then probably duck out of the thread because I don’t have the patience for this -Yoink-.
> >
> > Rock-Paper-Scissors: Strategy that revolves around certain items defeating (countering) other items.
> > Hard-Counters: Items that completely destroy other items in certain situations.
> > Soft-Counters: Items that give you an edge over other items in certain situations.
> > Risk (Skill)-Reward: The ratio of reward given to risk taken (or skill input required).
> >
> > “Anti-Auto people don’t look at minimum killtimes.”
> > Yes, yes I do. I also look at effective killtimes. You can’t judge balance solely by on-paper theorycraft which is entirely separate from reality.
> >
> > “All games have rock-paper-scissors gameplay.”
> > That’s a debatable statement, but what isn’t debatable is the fact not all games approach Rock-Paper-Scissors the same way.
> >
> > Soft-Counter Relationship:
> > Halo Ce Assault Rifle versus Halo Ce Magnum in close quarters. The Ce Magnum has a minimum 3sk killtime of 0.6s. Yet it also has a 5sk Bodyshot killtime of 1.2s. Meanwhile the Assault Rifle has a consistent killtime of ~1.0s along with superior melee. Take into consideration it’s much easier to land all your bodyshots with an AR in CQC than it is to get a perfect three-headshot kill with the Magnum in the same range. So the Magnum user will be getting 5sk unless they are exceptionally skilled (or lucky). Thus the AR has the clear (killtime) advantage in this situation, but still has to work for the kill. Yet the potential for the Magnum user to win through superior, perfect aim still exists, which creates a skill-gap and rewards good play.
> >
> > The Halo 5 Assault Rifle and Halo 5 Magnum also share this relationship to a degree, though it’s much more skewed in the Assault Rifle’s favor relative to Ce.
> >
> > I could provide several other relationships (such as Utility Weapon and Sniper) and describe how they have shifted from soft-counter to hard-counter relationships, but the main focus of this thread is automatics so I won’t. I will say that “Power Weapons” didn’t really exist until Halo 2 exactly because of this shift.
> >
> > Hard-Counter Relationship:
> > Halo 5 SMG versus Halo 5 Magnum in close quarters. It’s still much easier to land all your bodyshots within close range than it is to land a perfect-five shot. Yet even with a perfect five-shot the Magnum only kills in ~1.4s while the SMG kills in ~1.0s, and an imperfect 7sk bodyshot killtime is twice as slow. The SMG is practically guaranteed to win the battle unless they have god-awful aim, and there’s absolutely no room for the Magnum user to outplay the SMG user. The battle ultimately comes down to who had the best weapon, skill is rendered largely irrelevant.
> >
> > Applying this mentality to other games:
> > -Most weapons in CoD are soft-counters to each other, there’s very few that absolutely shut down another weapon. Assault Rifles in that game are viable choices against Snipers in long-range due to their great ADS accuracy and variety of scope attachments. Conversely, people can slap ACOG’s on their Sniper Rifles and still be viable long-range weapons while standing a chance against Assault Rifles in medium range.
> > -The Pyro is a soft-counter to the Soldier in TF2. Pyros can reflect rockets and completely nullify the Soldier’s main weapon, but still have to contend with the Soldier’s other weapons.
> > -The Scout is a hard-counter to the Demoman in TF2. Demomen use slow projectile weapons only viable against slow classes, while Scouts are extremely fast and can run circles around Demomen in CQC while peppering them with their Shotguns. A Demoman must rely on his teammates to protect him from Scouts.
> > -The Engineer is a hard-counter to the Scout in TF2. A Scout’s shotgun is very ineffective at taking out Engineer sentry guns, and those sentries can track the Scout easily and shred his low HP. Scouts must rely on their teammates to take out sentries that impede their progress.
> > -In the two above scenarios Teamwork is important while Individual Skill doesn’t come into play at all.
> >
> > Risk-Reward:
> > If a weapon is easier to use and more rewarding than it’s alternatives, then there’s no point in using those alternatives. Thus you always have to have a system of checks and balances in place.
> >
> > Rockets are easy to use and very rewarding. So they’re limited to one per map and take a long time to spawn.
> > Automatics are very easy to use…so they are limited in firepower and/or range to prevent them from dominating everything else and make them less rewarding.
> > Snipers are hard to use…so they are given a lot of power and versatility to compensate, making them very rewarding in the right hands.
>
>
> Exactly buff the pistol and reduce aim assist further would make the game better

Agreed. As it stands, the BR and DMR are better in every aspect over the Magnum, but are much less skill-demanding to use.

If you look at higher level play, Diamond and up, you’ll notice that the use of auto’s goes way down, even on smaller maps like Truth and Empire. The reason for this is that at higher ranks players generally have a better shot than in lower ranks, so they’re less likely to use an auto except in close range.

Take a look at this game from Snip3down, Truth CTF, a small map. He gets 38 kills, 18 with the BR, 12 with the magnum, 2 with the AR, 2 melee, 1 Carbine, 1 Frag, 1 SMG, and 1 sword kill. Auto’s just don’t account for many kills in high level play.

I remember seeing stats somewhere that said something along the lines of 5% of kills in Champ league were auto’s.

I used to be anti auto but now I mix it up and now have swith weapons on one trigger on mu elite controller

Did I just read that the needler was previously the best way to counter a sniper in Halo2? Lol. Not to mention pre-patch halo 2 had the worst weapon balance in the series.

I cant help but read these complaints and see concerns that are completely alleviated with skill. I’m surprised that I’m the one to bring it to, because I’m not that good.

Before Halo5arena.com changed their layout. That data the pulled showed how people at different skill levels used these weapons.

At the lowest skill levels, the AR made up for 50% of kills, and the magnum made up for about 12%. At the champion level, the magnum made up for 55% of kills and the AR made up for 10%.

This data shows if you are getting killed crossmap by ARs, it’s because you aren’t very good. It takes 1 shot from your pistol to descope your opponent, rendering autos useless at range.

Get your precision skills up, and you’ll be able to punish people who try to use autos at long range… You’ll then find yourself playing against opponents who won’t even try it.

also, I disagree that the pistol needs a buff and magnetism reduction, it’s current stats work very well with H5s mechanics. It’s statistically inferior to a BR at medium range, but has a higher rate of fire AND you can use thrusters between shots w/o increasing your kill time. A skilled player can cause the BR user to miss a shot, then land a killing blow.

The he same principle applies if forced to use a magnum against an AR user at close range.

The AR is trash in H5.

A Pistol has at least 7 free shots before the AR will pull off a kill.

The SMG and Storm Rifle are definitely powerful in closer quarters, but they are not spawn weapons. And they are not useful in enough situations to be used as utilities like the BR/DMR and won’t stay in a player’s pocket when they pick up a power weapon. You can control the SMGS and Storm Rifles with your team, and easily keep track of how many are on the map, and when/where you’re likely to run into one.

Halo’s Meta has always revolved around holding setup positions to lock the enemy team in a spawn trap, then tag them with team-shots from mid-long range. And if you have BRs/DMRs, and you’re set-up for teamshots, the power of Autos is completely irrelevant because the enemy team simply can’t fight back with them.