The DMR will ruin this game if left as is, actually it is doing so as we speak

#161abel13111Posted 12/13/2012 1:36:35 PM
bearded_moose posted...
bearded_moose posted...
bearded_moose posted...
if they simply reduced the fire rate on the dmr by adding .5 or even .25 seconds between rounds and it WOULD have a niche without being nerfed beyond comprehension.

it would still have the 130 meters of aim assist, so it would still be far better on larger maps, for the reason alone. the ONLY place it would really lose out would be in mid to close range, where aim assist +higher firing rate would make the BR and carbine SLIGHTLY better.

no 1 weapon should be the best for EVERY scenario... a fire rate nerf would be ideal for balancing.

no complaints, just SCIENCE!!!


reposting this because it seems like everyone is too busy arguing ABOUT the balance issue to post actual ideas on how to FIX the balance issue...or, for that matter, notice when someone (like me) DOES try to post ideas.


aaaaaaaaaaand REPOSTING.
i'm sure someone will eventually get tired of throwing crap and read this...


This is gamefaqs man...and the halo board.
---
Sent from my iPhone via PowerFAQs 1.9
#162iRGushPosted 12/13/2012 1:37:32 PM(edited)
ArcGuard posted...
manrightchea posted...
fiasco86 posted...
SpiduxLimitless posted...

Halo has always been about getting the good weapon and dominating with it. Difference now? You start with the good weapon, you no longer have to hunt it down. What does that mean? You can now take on anyone in the map from spawn or respawn.


False.

Counter-example: Halo 1. You know, the beginning of the Halo series.


Halo 1 was not online compatible you goofball. Only via system link and tunneling software could you enjoy large multiplayer battles.

Also it was CE's campaign that solidified the series, the multplayer was a bonus.


Now I know you're just trolling. Halo CE was known for its Multiplayer. The story was the bonus. I don't know anyone who rushed out to buy Halo for the story. It was about dat LAN.


People still lan halo 1 to this day, not playing splitscreen campaign.
---
Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
#163Knox_32Posted 12/13/2012 1:37:58 PM
bearded_moose posted...
bearded_moose posted...
bearded_moose posted...
if they simply reduced the fire rate on the dmr by adding .5 or even .25 seconds between rounds and it WOULD have a niche without being nerfed beyond comprehension.

it would still have the 130 meters of aim assist, so it would still be far better on larger maps, for the reason alone. the ONLY place it would really lose out would be in mid to close range, where aim assist +higher firing rate would make the BR and carbine SLIGHTLY better.

no 1 weapon should be the best for EVERY scenario... a fire rate nerf would be ideal for balancing.

no complaints, just SCIENCE!!!


reposting this because it seems like everyone is too busy arguing ABOUT the balance issue to post actual ideas on how to FIX the balance issue...or, for that matter, notice when someone (like me) DOES try to post ideas.


aaaaaaaaaaand REPOSTING.
i'm sure someone will eventually get tired of throwing crap and read this...


I am not sure that this is the exact answer, but it could be a viable change. I feel a lot of the maps seem to be designed with the dmr in mind as the primary weapon, especially the larger maps. At a distance if the dmr fired slower, it would be easier for people to find cover before they died, which could have the effect of slowing down the game.

I personally think the br is fine as is. It is great when used with a team or in conjunction with grenades. It difference in one on one fights with the dmr (in infinity slayer maps aka mid range fights) is small enough that player skill can make up for it.

I feel the light rifle should just be hitscan, and that the carbine needs to fire faster or have one less bullet to kil.

I believe I posted similar ideas earlier, but they have now been overshadowed due to some comments I made in regards to other subjects.
---
Summoner Name - AceBadcat
Mains - Cho'Gath, Ziggs, Viktor, Nunu, and Ezreal
#164manrightchea(Topic Creator)Posted 12/13/2012 1:39:14 PM
ArcGuard posted...
manrightchea posted...
fiasco86 posted...
SpiduxLimitless posted...

Halo has always been about getting the good weapon and dominating with it. Difference now? You start with the good weapon, you no longer have to hunt it down. What does that mean? You can now take on anyone in the map from spawn or respawn.


False.

Counter-example: Halo 1. You know, the beginning of the Halo series.


Halo 1 was not online compatible you goofball. Only via system link and tunneling software could you enjoy large multiplayer battles.

Also it was CE's campaign that solidified the series, the multplayer was a bonus.


Now I know you're just trolling. Halo CE was known for its Multiplayer. The story was the bonus. I don't know anyone who rushed out to buy Halo for the story. It was about dat LAN.


Did you buy Halo 1 at launch like I did? The reason I asked is because the Xbox back then was seen as an unsure investment, a dark horse.

Halo was a new IP on a new console. People I knew didn't buy it for its multiplayer, especially considering that you needed ethernet cables and TV's for more than 4 players to play in a match.

I remember it being acclaimed, and thus becoming huge, due to its stellar campaign.
---
GT: FRANK NlTTl
"I am a great wind who will sweep all before me like a........a great wind!"
#165SpiduxLimitlessPosted 12/13/2012 1:42:18 PM
manrightchea posted...
Yep I was right. Halo PC launched a full 2 YEARS later than Halo CE for XB1. Damn right it should have had online previous to that you needed tunneling software ya goofball.

Lol.


So because it came out two years later that makes it irrelevant? No. Halo 1 had multiplayer, it just sounds like you were too lame to pick it up.
---
They call me Spoke Wrecker...
Thizz iz what it iz GT-Spidux
#166ArcGuardPosted 12/13/2012 1:43:53 PM
manrightchea posted...
ArcGuard posted...
manrightchea posted...
fiasco86 posted...
SpiduxLimitless posted...

Halo has always been about getting the good weapon and dominating with it. Difference now? You start with the good weapon, you no longer have to hunt it down. What does that mean? You can now take on anyone in the map from spawn or respawn.


False.

Counter-example: Halo 1. You know, the beginning of the Halo series.


Halo 1 was not online compatible you goofball. Only via system link and tunneling software could you enjoy large multiplayer battles.

Also it was CE's campaign that solidified the series, the multplayer was a bonus.


Now I know you're just trolling. Halo CE was known for its Multiplayer. The story was the bonus. I don't know anyone who rushed out to buy Halo for the story. It was about dat LAN.


Did you buy Halo 1 at launch like I did? The reason I asked is because the Xbox back then was seen as an unsure investment, a dark horse.

Halo was a new IP on a new console. People I knew didn't buy it for its multiplayer, especially considering that you needed ethernet cables and TV's for more than 4 players to play in a match.

I remember it being acclaimed, and thus becoming huge, due to its stellar campaign.

No, I didn't buy it at launch. I bought it afterwards. After all my friends were ranting and raving about how good its MULTIPLAYER and LANs were.

I heard not one peep out of anyone about the single player.



As I said - It was critically acclaimed for its Multiplayer, not its story. I don't even understand how you can think that.

I loved the story. That's not why I nor anyone I know bought it.
#167JkickitPosted 12/13/2012 1:44:48 PM
VauntX posted...
Why is that people always cry out for a DMR nerf? If the weapons are imbalanced, then just buff the weaker ones to bring them in line. That's a solution that makes sense.


But then it'd be more like CoD.
---
Oh no meng! http://tinyurl.com/bcnp2xk FF XIII/Skyrim = 100% - --- GT: Gears of Wario
Now Playing: Skyrim, PKMN White 2, and PKMN Crystal.
#168aLmosT_bLinDPosted 12/13/2012 1:46:31 PM
Jkickit posted...
VauntX posted...
Why is that people always cry out for a DMR nerf? If the weapons are imbalanced, then just buff the weaker ones to bring them in line. That's a solution that makes sense.


But then it'd be more like CoD.


It already is COD with more health, lol.
---
Gamertag: Too Relaxed
Call me Mr Swag.
#169manrightchea(Topic Creator)Posted 12/13/2012 1:55:24 PM

No, I didn't buy it at launch. I bought it afterwards. After all my friends were ranting and raving about how good its MULTIPLAYER and LANs were.

I heard not one peep out of anyone about the single player.



As I said - It was critically acclaimed for its Multiplayer, not its story. I don't even understand how you can think that.

I loved the story. That's not why I nor anyone I know bought it.





Different experiences for different people then. I and my friends bought it because it was the best launch title at the time due to its stellar campaign and the LAN's etc came later.

I guess because you didn't have to acknowledge that risk factor, you had different reasons. I honestly can't see how you feel the multiplayer was the reason for its initial success.
---
GT: FRANK NlTTl
"I am a great wind who will sweep all before me like a........a great wind!"
#170CKnightPosted 12/13/2012 1:58:34 PM
Buff the other weapons and still nerf the dmr.