Zanderos

I wasn't saying whether the BR/DMR was or wasn't easy to use, just that the BR doesn't compare, and people who don't use the DMR usually don't know better.

Yeah, it's for people to use who don't know better or who suck. How does acceptance (not exceptance ) relate to the OPs post?

Again, so if I get killed by two guys, one of which is using a plasma pistol, and the other a DMR, then I come on the forums and complain that the plasma pistol is *** and overpowered, that means it's actually overpowered? Like I said, there has to be a certain rationale behind the complaints, or they mean nothing. It's how logical the conclusions are that truly matters as far as true balance goes.

So, if I complain about the plasma pistol being overpowered, that means I'm right? The whole point to constructively analyzing/complaining about a game is to logically arrive at a conclusion, supported by deductive or fact-supported evidence. If a dev team operated based on how many people complained about X item, that would be a pretty stupid game, don't you think? Although, ironically, I think there's some truth in your statement. Personally, I think a lot guns in general are a little powerful, and adds to the already overly fast paced environment.

And if everyone was someone like you, there would never be any improvement to games. If these people are so happy to be playing either way, what do they care if the game is constructively analyze and changed for the better? Conversely, no one that's trying to fix things really cares for what you have to say. Stating a number of people online does absolutely nothing. As you so nicely put it, you have no idea what's going on internally at 343, and therefore have absolutely no basis for saying what's good and what's bad. Nor is that number indicative of any logical conclusion. Run along now. And it's always the minority that is vocal.

Depending on the map, it already is. Not sure if serious...

...His point is that that type of play is boring. I agree. How about let's keep it at the snipers being long range? That's the whole point of a sniper. Exactly. It isn't ridiculously overpowered. It's just that the range is slighty too much, and it makes for boring gameplay when everyone just sits at range and DMRs across the map. Since when is that fun? Oh, since never. I thought Reach taught us all that. To me, it's like, wow yeah, I ******* realize that you can kill someone using a DMR if you have an AR and you're up close. But I don't want to be forced to crouch around certain maps in order to not give them the advantage, or other similarly boring tactics, just because the DMR has such a long range. It's not a matter of not being able to compete with it. It's the manner in which we have to do so.

Sure, it's perfectly possible to take a mantis down. However, I hate the new Ragnarok gameplay. Compared to what it was before, there's just something off. Too many power weapons, too many vehicles, or perhaps a combination of them. I think going back to the basics of gameplay would make for a more entertaining match.

This. I can sit here and complain all day about the DMR, but a slight reduction in its range capabilities or a slight reduction in damage would do a lot. Personally, I hate the loadout system, but I doubt it's going to change. It removes the challenge of objective games on certain maps, and large maps in general are obnoxiously boring, due to the range fest they become.

I don't "mind" ordinance drops - I just wish there were other playlists to choose from... Specifically ones that have no loadouts, no ordinances, etc. Just barebones old school Halo.

Point well taken. I guess that's why I liked Halo 3 so much more. The only thing I have to say about that -The range in Midship was never really that far away. However, the guy is using a sniper scope to first zoom in right on his face. Am I wrong in thinking that the H4 DMR has better range capabilities than the H2 BR?

No, I don't disagree with you. There are certain guns that are better at close range than long range, and vice versa. However, it's the range that comes into play. A person that has a good close range weapon has far fewer strategies available to beat the enemy. Since he is FORCED to go after the long range person (assuming the DMR guy isn't running around narrow hallways), that gives the DMR guy an inherent advantage. He can force the shotgun guy to attempt to get into close range. He can force the shotgun guy to get into situations where he's at a disadvantage, and not the other way around. Is that a little clearer than what I was saying before? And really, to everyone saying the BR had a similar range to the DMR, are you sure about that? I know it's been a long time since H2, but I just do not remember the BR as having anywhere close to the range that the DMR has.

I guess your H2 experience was different than mine. I don't remember complaining about the range on the BR nearly as much as I have about the DMR. The BR was overpowered in H2, though. I'm still confused. If you don't want a rock/paper/scissors style of play, why argue for different weapons at all? Why not ask for everyone to start out with the same weapon? You're all on a perfectly even playing field at that point.

You're confusing skill level with strategy, man. A developer doesn't balance guns or games around the fact that one opponent sucks and the other doesn't. That would make for a ridiculous game. How can you argue otherwise? Do you undetstand how farfatched that would be? Every gun would be the exact same, due to varying skill levels. I would love to see your AR buddy go up against me with a DMR. As long as I keep myself up high with no corners around me, your buddy is going to be forced to come to me to get a kill, not the other way around. And since I would never put myself in a situation with the DMR where I would give your buddy an opportunity to get into shooting distance without putting damage on him, your buddy is never going to kill me. It's like saying you could beat a BR in Halo 2 with an assault rifle. Yeah, only if the BR guy is an idiot. That's why you can't take skill level into account when developing a game. Once again, you miss the point. You start out with the DMR, and it's very long range. That's what everyone is saying. The BR in H2 never shot from across the entire board like the DMR does. Just as with the other post I quoted, your type of balance would consist of one weapon. You do understand what's what you're arguing for, if not a rock/paper/scissors type of style, right? Why offer different weapons at all, in that case, if you want everyone to start off on the same level? So the poor idiots who don't understand can choose the AR and be fodder to the DMR people?

No. When forming an argument, however, you have to assume that each side has the same exact skill level.

Nice fallacious logic there. If I went to your house and shot you with a gun from across the room, and you had no weapon, I'm just a better fighter than you. Honestly though, so if someone kills you from 100 feet away with a DMR, and you have a plasma rifle, do you really think that he's "just a better player than you"? You didn't refute any of the arguments made here. So what do you do when there is a coordinated team picking targets (read: shooting the same target) from long range with a DMR? Wait until you all have snipers? Give me a break. It has turned into a ranged-fest. Again, similar to the above poster, you only consider your specific situation and use that as leverage to make a point. You have to consider all situations, or your argument holds less weight. Simply saying "work together and you'll be fine" is not a solution. Do you really want to be confined to one or two specific strategies to take out a group of camping DMRs? I highly doubt that.

Once again, to reiterate, the DMR is more problematic due to the range and the fact that everyone starts out with it. It isn't the amount of shots in which it kills. You could not kill people from across the entire board using the BR. That's what made the BR in Halo 2 bearable. It even made team BRs (can't remember the names of the playlists anymore) bearable. If you like that more, then you like it more. EDIT: I guess I'm just surprised by your vehement opposition to the Halo 2 BR, when it seems as though the H4 DMR is even more overpowered than that. It shoots across the entire map and kills quickly, even at long distances.

This. 1000 times this. This is the main reason I don't like this game. Everything else is pretty damn cool, except for this.

This is exactly my problem, too. I would change few other things. But I don't see this happening, unfortunately. Custom loadouts are one of the cores of this new matchmaking system. There is no need to use any other weapon than a DMR. You could use no ordinances and ignore all "power weapons" that are laying around the map, and still completely own. I am not going to tell another person how to have fun or that their version of fun is wrong, but for me, this new long-rage, Reach style of gameplay is not very fun at all. What happened to the fun fights of old, where you actually had to go locate your enemy? Now, it's over in all of 5 shots with the DMR from a safe distance. And why would I disadvantage myself by starting out with an AR? I would get owned. Again, Halo 2 and 3 did have everyone trying to get the BR, but you have to remember that: 1) the BR had serious range limitations that the DMR does not, and 2) you didn't start out with one unless you were playing a specific gametype. By the way, why is the DMR still around? If it was an old gun, why do we have it in a time period that's ahead of the rest? My real disbelief is that a lot of people seem to like this new style. Why do you prefer this DMR battle, as opposed to starting off with an AR? It was a challenge to kill the mother ****** with the sniper rifle, or BR, or whatever. You often had to use team work to take him down. Now, you can do it just fine by yourself, so long as you get the first DMR bullet in there.

You start out with a DMR. What need do you have to run into danger when you can sit far away and strafe around the map? No need to put yourself in danger when you start out with a great weapon.

I'd like a gametype where everyone starts out with the AR, and you have to fight each other to control the weapons that are laid out across the map. So... Halo 1, 2, and 3, pretty much.

This is really everything that is wrong with the matchmaking for me. I don't want everyone to start out with the DMR. It's stupid. It's turned into a lesser sniper rifle. I loved being on an even playing field, but that's just no longer the case. And it sucks, because I thought that style of play was far more entertaining that what it is now. The balance of weaponry at the level it needs to be whatsoever.

It's very un-Halo-y, and feels very much like the bad part of Reach. The problem is that everyone starts out with a DMR. It's just a constant long range battle from the get-go. Run around with a friend, regen, and promethean vision, and simply tear everything apart at a nice, safe distance. It's a boring way of playing, but brutally effective, and therefore not doing so is not as fun, because you'll get steamrolled by those who DO utilize that tactic. Halo 4 NEEDS a playlist where there are no custom loadouts, and everyone starts out with the ****ty AR like we always used to. The game plays nicely sometimes, but the overall feel of Halo 4 multiplayer is not very fun in my opinion. There is little incentive to move around the map or pick up other weapons. I miss those up-close and personal sessions we had in Halo 2 and 3. EDIT: And as to the BR in H2 and H3, it wasn't nearly as effective long range as the DMR, which is the main problem. Either you started out with BRs, or you fought to obtain them. But they weren't nearly as powerful due to the range limitation. On that topic, I would assume that is a big reason they added bloom in the first place.