Dammit, Mock, I'm trying to breathe here. Fauch - bloom is what happens when you fire as fast as possible with the DMR. Your reticule gets bigger and bigger, and the shots spread out and may miss their target. Taking the occasional short pause will reset the bloom. This effect was far worse in Reach, to the point that if you didn't pause between basically every shot, you could hardly hit people at long range. Also, go test it in a custom game. Fire up a second controller, make the guy stand ten feet away from you, and shoot him four times followed by one to the head. It's a kill.
that must be it. I shoot fast. it was a good tactic on other games, but I guess not on Halo. hum that makes a noticeable difference. I notice that the same technic also works well with the magnum. I have been more consistent with heashots
Peg's suggestion of Damage Drop-off over distance doesn't solve the problem, it creates new ones. It turns the DMR from a precision long range weapon, to a precision close range weapon. Let's say for the sake of argument that 343i went ahead and implemented this suggestion, then the first person that finds that they can get the same kind of damage up close with the DMR that they could get over distance, well a whole new set of problems are going to crop up. We essentially have a rifle version of the Magnum. I've changed my stance on the RoF, but the DMR's overall damage, regardless of distance, needs nerfing.
But the entire basis of the above discussion is that the DMR's basically limitless range is what's hurting the game. You're basically proposing drawing out kill times as a whole, which (IMO) is senseless. People made exactly the same criticisms of the DMR in Reach, which had the longest utility kill times of any Halo game ever. It's the ranged variation of effectiveness (or lack thereof) which is causing the problem here. We're trying to work towards the Halo 3 situation here, where the BR was a useful ranged weapon, but less useful after a point. Shooting from top mid to back of base on Valhalla wasn't going to yield you a 4 shot (hell, 4 shooting across Heretic was a pretty rare occurrence tbh), but doing so with the DMR in Halo 4 is child's play. That's what range drop off is trying to limit, but without introducing randomness (ie. inconsistent limiting) like spread did. You're saying that you don't want precision weapons to be viable at long range or short range? Why not just remove them entirely rather then nerfing them in to uselessness? The DMR being powerful at close range is specifically not the problem, because there are multiple classes of weapons designed to and capable of outclassing it there. The issue is that you can pin people down cross map with it, and it isn't even very difficult considering how generous the thing is with aim and bullet magnetism, plus hitboxes. EDIT: Going back and reading your posts, the initial complaint you yourself brought up was people pinning you down cross map with it. That's specifically what damage drop off addresses. Now you're saying you don't want it to be anything close to viable even at close range? Where the enemy is easily visible and you're equipped with a range capable weapon which can beat them? Sorry to sound presumptuous, but it sounds like you just dislike precision weapons being viable in Halo at all and want an AR to be a guaranteed win in every circumstance. Frankly you're playing the wrong game if that's the case, and more importantly you have been for the entire series. Viable, even fundamental precision utility weapons aren't just a long standing part of Halo, they're a fundamental part. Again, sorry if I sound harsh here but I haven't actually heard any balance arguments from you as to why the DMR is damaging other than you don't like having it used against you.
You are being presumptuous Peg. I don't mind precision weapons AT ALL. And where in my last post did I make any mention of the AR? Did I make mention of the AR in past posts? Yes, but in the post I made yesterday I didn't. My issue is about precision weapons is how their employed, but that's a discussion for a different thread, so just drop it. As far as the AR is concerned, just drop it. I'm past saying all I have to say about that weapon. Any other complaints I have about the DMR will be posted in the Vent your frustrations thread. Reducing the damage over distance for the DMR is only going to turn it into a close range weapon. It only takes five shots to the head to kill a player at both close and long range. Seven shots if their body hits. That's one shot less than the magnum at close range. Don't believe me, go fire up a custom game and test it out yourself. As of right now, I have nothing further to say on the DMR in this thread.
I only used the AR as a general reference point for CQC focused utility weapons, which effectively equates to the full auto primaries. Apologies for putting words in your mouth by referencing it, that was not my intention. I know how many shots to kill it is, but I don't see how that's an argument. You don't want it to be viable a close range weapon, but surely you don't want it to be as viable as it is at long range either based on the original discussion. Closer range weapons already kill faster than the DMR at intended ranges, so what's wrong with it being a 5sk at closer ranges? Fair enough if you don't want to do this anymore, and again apologies for putting words in to your mouth and leaping to conclusions. This isn't me trying to rub anything in, I just genuinely don't understand what your position on precision weapons like the DMR is if you see a problem with them being as viable as they currently are at either long or close range.
Just like to point out damage drop off has inconsistencies. Fighting someone at the point where it drops off and both players are strafing in circles not just side to side, First problem is how much damage do you lose and how many extra shoots will you have to take but most importantly as a player you wont know how much damage your shoot did (which I would say is important with a single shot DMR gun) Obviously after drop off it will be at least 1 more shot to kill but that makes it a mess hitting dropped off and non-dropped off shots (not to mention assists) On the pit most fighting happens at same range, If drop off happened at that range it would make playing the pit a uncompetitive experience.
But it doesn't make it random - just creates a new, very large skill gap (some might say a skill chasm) where the damage of each shot takes a very good eye to assess. It does make the game muddier. But I think there are still two good arguments in favor of it: 1. There's literally no better solution that I can think of for the issue of what the DMR does to BTB. None. How else are you going to reduce the DMR's ability to pin down and kill opponents from miles away? You either limit its range (so beyond a certain point it does NO damage, which IMO sucks worse than a dropoff), or you introduce randomness with shot spread (which is inherently less predictable than dropoff would be, unless you add in a clear and obvious visual indicator every time a shot actually registers; the problem with spread like in Halo 3 is feeling like you landed eighteen shots and the guy still made it to cover; and even if you add the indicator, it's still RANDOM, which is fine for the AR at long range but not so much for a precision weapon, IMO). The third option that I hesitate to even mention would be enlarging the reticule, not making it less precise but giving the player less of a visual indicator over large distances of whether they will hit the target; and/or removing the scope. I dislike both of these options pretty intensely as they completely change the weapon, affect even mid-sized maps, and represent a large shift in Halo's core mechanics. 2. For reasons alluded to already, it's not exactly new to the series to not know precisely how much damage each shot does (or even whether or not it hit). The very best Halo players may be shot-counters who are so used to landing every bullet that they know exactly how much it takes to kill in every scenario - but I think most of us tend to just shoot until the guy's dead. We may know to headshot when shields are down, and even know how many shots it is to kill in the back of our minds, but we don't literally count shots or assume in the heat of battle that a person who appeared to take three shots has just 33% of a shield left. In Halo 3, between spread and lag you could have a shot that looked good do no damage at all. In fact, the BR with its three-bullet cluster was capable of doing very different amounts of damage per shot in both 2 and 3. Yet that weapon is remembered quite fondly by most competitive players, and it muddied the precision weapon waters about as much as it's possible to muddy them. A DMR with dropoff would be crystal clear in comparison.
Take the DMR, put a 2x scope on it, decrease the range at which the reticule turns red, decrease the range it which you have aim assist, decrease the range at which there's bullet magnetism. Bam. Spoiler Make it a 4-shot while you're at it. Also, Nutduster, the Halo 2 pre-patch and Halo 3 BR are not remembered very fondly. You just spray the around people in the hope that you hit some of your shots.
That's... not bad. A dropoff for magnetism might be nearly as effective as a dropoff for damage. Depends who you talk to, I guess. Several guys I play with loved the Halo 3 BR and bitched endlessly about the DMR, even after the TU. They were "weird competitives" though - non-MLG types who talked badly about both MLG players AND vanilla Reach. It's an interesting little community, that one.
Nutduster, thanks for making every single point I would have. WWWilliam, I think we differ on our understanding of the term "consistent." Even if damage drop off were so hard to judge as to be arguably impossible, it'd still be consistent, in that the same input variables would yield the same result every single time. Consistency is more to do with randomness than predictability. It being hard to judge is a fair point to make, but I think that'd add to the skill of using the weapon, especially at the ranges we're talking. Hell, you could even make the range indicators in the scope HUD actually worth something then, giving yet another dynamic to the scoped or unscoped choice. Over, that's actually a very interesting idea. I'm personally not a fan of the idea of it being a binary thing, ie. a point before which you have bullet magnetism, and past which you don't. That seems too absolute to me, and would give an abrupt change to how the gun functioned at what'd essentially be an arbitrary point. But gradual drop off of bullet and reticle magnetism over longer ranges would be another possible way of dealing with the issue for sure. I still think I'd prefer damage drop off since it doesn't change the way the player interacts with the gun, so to speak, but instead affects the outcome. Your suggestion comes at it from the other direction in a sense. But I think that my gravitation towards the former is subjective, rather than something I think objectively helps balance. Definitely an interesting suggestion.
I'm not a 100% sure, but doesn't it already happen when you're reticule isn't red even though it's right over your target? The moment it goes from red to blue it means that the player is out of range and aim-assist and bullet magnetism aren't in effect. It's a good visual aid to communicate to people that they're not being assisted by the game anymore and that they will be less accurate. I'm not a big fan of 'inconsistent' damage in a game where every bullets counts as much as in Halo so I'd rather stay away from that if possible. Even in a game like Battlefield it annoys me at times, even though it takes much less bullets to kill an opponent.
Bolt shot needs to be turned down. I get killed by that more than assault rifles in CQC. Plasma grenades need a bigger blast radious... You can stand a foot away and not be hurt... Also I would love if they took them out of loadouts. Pulse grenades are a joke. Only way you get a kill is if you throw it at someone who is one-shot. And if he's already one shot why not just shoot him? Railgun could use a small bump up. Its weak unless you hit the person directly. Scattershot needs to be strengthened a bit as well. Boltshot makes it look like a *****. DMR should fire slower, or made to be less accurate.
Not sure if the Railgun should get a bump up, but maybe a slight nerf. The other day I used one to kill an fully intact Ghost. Not fooling. And I seem to recall getting a couple of kills with just splash damage from the blast. Can't really remember.
I don't mean to be that guy, but a Rail gun CAN'T kill a full health ghost. Doesn't do enough damage. Try it in a custom game. I don't think it needs a buff though. I love it the way it is. A one hit kill weapon with near instant bullet travel time should damn well require accuracy. The only thing I'd personally do is give it one more shot by default, so you get 4 spare instead of 3. But even then I'd like to test that a lot before committing.
I don't think the Railgun needs a nerf either. It only has a few shots of ammo, and yeah hitting a fresh full health ghost won't destroy it in one shot it takes two unless there was already some of the ghost's health gone. I think what needs Nerfed is how there is too many power weapons in BTB from personal ordnance. Maybe they should make personal ordnance not come so often. half the time you get personal ordnance power weapon, get a few kills and get another ordnance before you even run out of ammo for the current power weapon! I dunno... BTB just doesn't have any competitiveness feel to it anymore. If I ever make a BTB map I am going old school with a custom restricted gametype.
I'm with you. I find the railgun a joy to use but the amount of ammo makes it slightly underpowered compared to a lot of the other power weapons. Why it has so many fewer shots than the binary and sniper rifles AND the explosive weapons is strange. It's basically a hybrid of the two classes, yet it has less shots than any of them. On a different note, here's one that needs nerfing: fuel rod gun. Oh god, is that thing annoying. If you're precise with it, you can rack up disgusting amounts of kills. It's not so bad in BTB but on mid-sized maps... shudder. It would probably be OK with less ammo.