Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Why the Beam Rifle should not be in Infinite

OP RegentTitan453

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
WerepyreND wrote:
I fail to see the reason why having a Covenant equivalent of what the UNSC had as being a bad thing??? The Beam Rifle was always my favorite over the UNSC Sniper, though I do like both. And if you want a laser sniper we already have one thanks to 343i changing it; the Binary Rifle. Sniper lasers are annoying imo, so no, no Focus Rifle from me. The Beam Rifle is fine just the way it is and should not be replaced.
Because its boring and we could fill that slot with something more unique? Fair enough if you don't like the focus rifle specifically, but keeping the beam rifle unchanged just leaves us with a shallower sandbox than we could have otherwise had.

Personally I want the different weapons in the sandbox to be more than just window dressing for the other factions.
That's fine if it's what you want, but no matter what we want at the end of the day if it's not needed it won't happen. We've been fine with the Beam Rifle for this long and from what I've seen the Focus Rifle wasn't exactly given a positive response back in Reach days.
What on Earth do you mean "if its needed?" We've also been 'fine' without the beam rifle or the larger part of the Covenant sandbox if CE is anything to go by so I guess we don't "need" a larger sandbox at all. I know for a fact 343 is capable of creating unique weapon mechanics, so why are we going to settle for reskins?
WerepyreND wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
I fail to see the reason why having a Covenant equivalent of what the UNSC had as being a bad thing??? The Beam Rifle was always my favorite over the UNSC Sniper, though I do like both. And if you want a laser sniper we already have one thanks to 343i changing it; the Binary Rifle. Sniper lasers are annoying imo, so no, no Focus Rifle from me. The Beam Rifle is fine just the way it is and should not be replaced.
Because its boring and we could fill that slot with something more unique? Fair enough if you don't like the focus rifle specifically, but keeping the beam rifle unchanged just leaves us with a shallower sandbox than we could have otherwise had.

Personally I want the different weapons in the sandbox to be more than just window dressing for the other factions.
That's fine if it's what you want, but no matter what we want at the end of the day if it's not needed it won't happen. We've been fine with the Beam Rifle for this long and from what I've seen the Focus Rifle wasn't exactly given a positive response back in Reach days.
What on Earth do you mean "if its needed?" We've also been 'fine' without the beam rifle or the larger part of the Covenant sandbox if CE is anything to go by so I guess we don't "need" a larger sandbox at all. I know for a fact 343 is capable of creating unique weapon mechanics, so why are we going to settle for reskins?
Because we don't need a different sniper, we don't need a laser sniper, because we already have a laser sniper. And CE was kind of a testing ground for what could be done, Halo 2 extended the arsenal for both the UNSC and the Covenant because they were expanding on the Universe. So yeah, it kind of was needed. The UNSC had 5 weapons: the Magnum, the Assault Rifle, the Rocket Launcher, the Sniper Rifle, and the Shotgun (6 if you count the Flamethrower only PC could use). The Covenant had 3, the Plasma Pistol, the Plasma Rifle, and the Needler (5 if you count the Energy Sword and the Fuel Rod Cannon).

Halo 2 introduced the SMG but took away the Assault Rifle and added the BR. The Covenant got the Brute Shot, the Brute Plasma Rifle, the Carbine, and the Beam Rifle. This put the UNSC at 6 and the Covenant at 9.
Because we don't need a different sniper, we don't need a laser sniper, because we already have a laser sniper. And CE was kind of a testing ground for what could be done, Halo 2 extended the arsenal for both the UNSC and the Covenant because they were expanding on the Universe. So yeah, it kind of was needed. The UNSC had 5 weapons: the Magnum, the Assault Rifle, the Rocket Launcher, the Sniper Rifle, and the Shotgun (6 if you count the Flamethrower only PC could use). The Covenant had 3, the Plasma Pistol, the Plasma Rifle, and the Needler (5 if you count the Energy Sword and the Fuel Rod Cannon).

Halo 2 introduced the SMG but took away the Assault Rifle and added the BR. The Covenant got the Brute Shot, the Brute Plasma Rifle, the Carbine, and the Beam Rifle. This put the UNSC at 6 and the Covenant at 9.
So what its first come first serve? In which case why did we "need" the Battle Rifle or the Brute PR, or the Spiker? Why did we "need" to change the plasma rifle going from CE to H2?

"Need" has nothing to do with anything because we can change the game if we think we can improve upon what came before. Otherwise we would either be stuck with the same set of weapons forever once we filled out the "needed" slots or the sandbox would endlessly grow which isn't realistic.

Nothing would ever get done if we focused on nebulous "needs" because "needs" don't exist in this context, only wants. I want to have a more interesting weapon sandbox because it leaves me with more to learn and master than there otherwise would be.
WerepyreND wrote:
Because we don't need a different sniper, we don't need a laser sniper, because we already have a laser sniper. And CE was kind of a testing ground for what could be done, Halo 2 extended the arsenal for both the UNSC and the Covenant because they were expanding on the Universe. So yeah, it kind of was needed. The UNSC had 5 weapons: the Magnum, the Assault Rifle, the Rocket Launcher, the Sniper Rifle, and the Shotgun (6 if you count the Flamethrower only PC could use). The Covenant had 3, the Plasma Pistol, the Plasma Rifle, and the Needler (5 if you count the Energy Sword and the Fuel Rod Cannon).

Halo 2 introduced the SMG but took away the Assault Rifle and added the BR. The Covenant got the Brute Shot, the Brute Plasma Rifle, the Carbine, and the Beam Rifle. This put the UNSC at 6 and the Covenant at 9.
So what its first come first serve? In which case why did we "need" the Battle Rifle or the Brute PR, or the Spiker? Why did we "need" to change the plasma rifle going from CE to H2?

"Need" has nothing to do with anything because we can change the game if we think we can improve upon what came before. Otherwise we would either be stuck with the same set of weapons forever once we filled out the "needed" slots or the sandbox would endlessly grow which isn't realistic.

Nothing would ever get done if we focused on nebulous "needs" because "needs" don't exist in this context, only wants. I want to have a more interesting weapon sandbox because it leaves me with more to learn and master than there otherwise would be.
Needs are most of the context based upon whatever the developers think the game would benefit from. If they think the old armory of weapons is getting stale, they'll change something up. If they think two weapons are too similar and it won't be good for the game, they'll remove it or change it.

Whatever the game needs is what the developers look into. But having two weapons that do the same thing in two different factions has never been the basis for changing something. The Focus Rifle was merely a change of pace Bungie wanted to try as their last game. In the end, it sucked in MY opinion and possibly the opinions of others.

The Binary Rifle was likely changed back to this design because it either:

A) was what they wanted to go with initially

or

B) was considered too OP as a projectile based weapon that did instant kill damage
WerepyreND wrote:
Because we don't need a different sniper, we don't need a laser sniper, because we already have a laser sniper. And CE was kind of a testing ground for what could be done, Halo 2 extended the arsenal for both the UNSC and the Covenant because they were expanding on the Universe. So yeah, it kind of was needed. The UNSC had 5 weapons: the Magnum, the Assault Rifle, the Rocket Launcher, the Sniper Rifle, and the Shotgun (6 if you count the Flamethrower only PC could use). The Covenant had 3, the Plasma Pistol, the Plasma Rifle, and the Needler (5 if you count the Energy Sword and the Fuel Rod Cannon).

Halo 2 introduced the SMG but took away the Assault Rifle and added the BR. The Covenant got the Brute Shot, the Brute Plasma Rifle, the Carbine, and the Beam Rifle. This put the UNSC at 6 and the Covenant at 9.
So what its first come first serve? In which case why did we "need" the Battle Rifle or the Brute PR, or the Spiker? Why did we "need" to change the plasma rifle going from CE to H2?

"Need" has nothing to do with anything because we can change the game if we think we can improve upon what came before. Otherwise we would either be stuck with the same set of weapons forever once we filled out the "needed" slots or the sandbox would endlessly grow which isn't realistic.

Nothing would ever get done if we focused on nebulous "needs" because "needs" don't exist in this context, only wants. I want to have a more interesting weapon sandbox because it leaves me with more to learn and master than there otherwise would be.
Needs are most of the context based upon whatever the developers think the game would benefit from. If they think the old armory of weapons is getting stale, they'll change something up. If they think two weapons are two similar and it won't be good for the game, they'll remove it or change it.

Whatever the game needs is what the developers look into. But having two weapons that do the same thing in two different factions has never been the basis for changing something. The Focus Rifle was merely a change of pace Bungie wanted to try as their last game. In the end, it sucked in MY opinion and possibly the opinions of others.

The Binary Rifle was likely changed back to this design because it either:

A) was what they wanted to go with initially

or

B) was considered too OP as a projectile based weapon that did instant kill damage
Could you please point me to the interview where Bungie added the Focus Rifle "for a change of pace" as opposed to removing the beam rifle for redundancy? If devs can change the sandbox for a reason as flippant as a "change of pace," then I don't think changing it to reduce redundancy in the sandbox is unreasonable or unrealistic to expect.

Like I said, if you don't like the Focus Rifle specifically, fine I'm not ride or die for the Focus Rifle(I also still the the Forerunner sandbox still needs serious adjustments), I just think its easily the more interesting option when picking between the two. As the long range Covenant weapon isn't just a purple sniper rifle I'll be happy, it can still look like and be called a Beam Rifle for all I care. There is plenty of room for the beam rifle itself to change fairly drastically and there is precedent for weapons within faction to change models and function.
WerepyreND wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Because we don't need a different sniper, we don't need a laser sniper, because we already have a laser sniper. And CE was kind of a testing ground for what could be done, Halo 2 extended the arsenal for both the UNSC and the Covenant because they were expanding on the Universe. So yeah, it kind of was needed. The UNSC had 5 weapons: the Magnum, the Assault Rifle, the Rocket Launcher, the Sniper Rifle, and the Shotgun (6 if you count the Flamethrower only PC could use). The Covenant had 3, the Plasma Pistol, the Plasma Rifle, and the Needler (5 if you count the Energy Sword and the Fuel Rod Cannon).

Halo 2 introduced the SMG but took away the Assault Rifle and added the BR. The Covenant got the Brute Shot, the Brute Plasma Rifle, the Carbine, and the Beam Rifle. This put the UNSC at 6 and the Covenant at 9.
So what its first come first serve? In which case why did we "need" the Battle Rifle or the Brute PR, or the Spiker? Why did we "need" to change the plasma rifle going from CE to H2?

"Need" has nothing to do with anything because we can change the game if we think we can improve upon what came before. Otherwise we would either be stuck with the same set of weapons forever once we filled out the "needed" slots or the sandbox would endlessly grow which isn't realistic.

Nothing would ever get done if we focused on nebulous "needs" because "needs" don't exist in this context, only wants. I want to have a more interesting weapon sandbox because it leaves me with more to learn and master than there otherwise would be.
Needs are most of the context based upon whatever the developers think the game would benefit from. If they think the old armory of weapons is getting stale, they'll change something up. If they think two weapons are two similar and it won't be good for the game, they'll remove it or change it.

Whatever the game needs is what the developers look into. But having two weapons that do the same thing in two different factions has never been the basis for changing something. The Focus Rifle was merely a change of pace Bungie wanted to try as their last game. In the end, it sucked in MY opinion and possibly the opinions of others.

The Binary Rifle was likely changed back to this design because it either:

A) was what they wanted to go with initially

or

B) was considered too OP as a projectile based weapon that did instant kill damage
Could you please point me to the interview where Bungie added the Focus Rifle "for a change of pace" as opposed to removing the beam rifle for redundancy? If devs can change the sandbox for a reason as flippant as a "change of pace," then I don't think changing it to reduce redundancy in the sandbox is unreasonable or unrealistic to expect.

Like I said, if you don't like the Focus Rifle specifically, fine I'm not ride or die for the Focus Rifle(I also still the the Forerunner sandbox still needs serious adjustments), I just think its easily the more interesting option when picking between the two. As the long range Covenant weapon isn't just a purple sniper rifle I'll be happy, it can still look like and be called a Beam Rifle for all I care. There is plenty of room for the beam rifle itself to change fairly drastically and there is precedent for weapons within faction to change models and function.
Did you not see their bit where they actually TALKED about the Focus Rifle??? I'm honestly not going to going to be able to find it, it was at one of the cons, either PAX or E3 but because it was so long ago, there's no chance I'll be able to find it (I did actively look for it before responding btw, but like I said, not everything dated a decade ago is locatable on the internet). But I remember them saying it was pretty much an experiment. Like if a Beam Rifle and a Sentinel Beam had a baby or something like that.

I just don't understand why you want the Covenant to have a laser (or whatever else you had in mind) based weapon when none of their weaponry save for the Focus Rifle was laser based from my knowledge. Sure, they shot laser like projectiles, but nothing actually like a laser, it was plasma. Lasers were kind of more the Forerunner thing back in the day. Personally I think the Beam Rifle fits in just fine among the arsenal of the Covenant. The Brutes were the only ones who didn't seem to take to the plasma based weaponry, preferring more brutal forms of weaponry.
Did you not see their bit where they actually TALKED about the Focus Rifle??? I'm honestly not going to going to be able to find it, it was at one of the cons, either PAX or E3 but because it was so long ago, there's no chance I'll be able to find it (I did actively look for it before responding btw, but like I said, not everything dated a decade ago is locatable on the internet). But I remember them saying it was pretty much an experiment. Like if a Beam Rifle and a Sentinel Beam had a baby or something like that.

I just don't understand why you want the Covenant to have a laser (or whatever else you had in mind) based weapon when none of their weaponry save for the Focus Rifle was laser based from my knowledge. Sure, they shot laser projectiles, but nothing actually like a laser. Lasers were kind of more the Forerunner thing back in the day. Personally I think the Beam Rifle fits in just fine among the arsenal of the Covenant. The Brutes were the only ones who didn't seem to take to the plasma based weaponry, preferring more brutal forms of weaponry.
Did you not read the rest of my post? For the third time, it doesn't have to be the focus rifle, as long as it the weapon isn't just a purple sniper rifle I'll be happy. Also being an "experiment" means nothing. They still didn't "need" to replace the beam rifle, yet they did anyway and 343 could just as easily do the same, but again just so we are clear: that doesn't mean we have to bring back the focus rifle, I'm fine with other alternatives, the status quo is just dead boring.

Putting aside the fact it ultimately doesn't matter to me whether the Covenant specifically have a "laser"(Focus Rifles fire plasma), which they already have for all intents and purposes, the lore is arbitrary and we can change it to suit our purposes. We can give any number of reasons to justify change on this level which we've done before and could do again.
WerepyreND wrote:
Did you not see their bit where they actually TALKED about the Focus Rifle??? I'm honestly not going to going to be able to find it, it was at one of the cons, either PAX or E3 but because it was so long ago, there's no chance I'll be able to find it (I did actively look for it before responding btw, but like I said, not everything dated a decade ago is locatable on the internet). But I remember them saying it was pretty much an experiment. Like if a Beam Rifle and a Sentinel Beam had a baby or something like that.

I just don't understand why you want the Covenant to have a laser (or whatever else you had in mind) based weapon when none of their weaponry save for the Focus Rifle was laser based from my knowledge. Sure, they shot laser projectiles, but nothing actually like a laser. Lasers were kind of more the Forerunner thing back in the day. Personally I think the Beam Rifle fits in just fine among the arsenal of the Covenant. The Brutes were the only ones who didn't seem to take to the plasma based weaponry, preferring more brutal forms of weaponry.
Did you not read the rest of my post? For the third time, it doesn't have to be the focus rifle, as long as it the weapon isn't just a purple sniper rifle I'll be happy. Also being an "experiment" means nothing. They still didn't "need" to replace the beam rifle, yet they did anyway and 343 could just as easily do the same, but again just so we are clear: that doesn't mean we have to bring back the focus rifle, I'm fine with other alternatives, the status quo is just dead boring.

Putting aside the fact it ultimately doesn't matter to me whether the Covenant specifically have a "laser"(Focus Rifles fire plasma), which they already have for all intents and purposes, the lore is arbitrary and we can change it to suit our purposes. We can give any number of reasons to justify change on this level which we've done before and could do again.
Quote:
"I just don't understand why you want the Covenant to have a laser (or whatever else you had in mind) based weapon"
Guess you missed that part, huh?

I was saying Focus Rifle because that's the weapon you seemed to pick in the OP.

Quote:
the lore is arbitrary and we can change it to suit our purposes
I can't agree, are you meaning to say that we can just do whatever we want because the lore is changeable on a whim or something? Or am I misunderstanding here?

Where I stand is that the Beam Rifle is fine, it doesn't need to be changed, it doesn't need to be dropped. If they want to ADD new weapons, that's fine, but I think we have enough weapons as it is thanks to Halo 5.
Quote:
"I just don't understand why you want the Covenant to have a laser (or whatever else you had in mind) based weapon"
Guess you missed that part, huh?

I was saying Focus Rifle because that's the weapon you seemed to pick in the OP.
I did miss that, too bad its meaningless unless you intend to dismiss anything else I might suggest out of hand. Especially since I already said it could still be a "Beam Rifle" firing particle beams, which you have already believe "fits with the rest of the Covenant." I just don't want a beam rifle firing particle beams to play like it is a sniper rifle with a mustache.
Quote:
Quote:
the lore is arbitrary and we can change it to suit our purposes
I can't agree, are you meaning to say that we can just do whatever we want because the lore is changeable on a whim or something? Or am I misunderstanding here?

Where I stand is that the Beam Rifle is fine, it doesn't need to be changed, it doesn't need to be dropped. If they want to ADD new weapons, that's fine, but I think we have enough weapons as it is thanks to Halo 5.
No that is not what I'm saying, you just are choosing not to listen. I'm pointing out that lore is not some immutable thing with a set standard. You are already picking and choosing which lore you think suits your point such "lasers are more of a Forerunner thing" as if their is some objective standard for weapons that "fit the Covenant" and on top of that the lore doesn't even back you up. The point is that there is lore is no barrier to having the focus rifle return, or changing how the beam rifle functions, or even doing something entirely new.

As for "having enough weapons" are we just done with new things now? Can't remove anything, can't change anything, can't add anything, just a recipe for stagnation.
WerepyreND wrote:
Quote:
"I just don't understand why you want the Covenant to have a laser (or whatever else you had in mind) based weapon"
Guess you missed that part, huh?

I was saying Focus Rifle because that's the weapon you seemed to pick in the OP.
I did miss that, too bad its meaningless unless you intend to dismiss anything else I might suggest out of hand. Especially since I already said it could still be a "Beam Rifle" firing particle beams, which you have already believe "fits with the rest of the Covenant." I just don't want a beam rifle firing particle beams to play like it is a sniper rifle with a mustache.
Quote:
Quote:
the lore is arbitrary and we can change it to suit our purposes
I can't agree, are you meaning to say that we can just do whatever we want because the lore is changeable on a whim or something? Or am I misunderstanding here?

Where I stand is that the Beam Rifle is fine, it doesn't need to be changed, it doesn't need to be dropped. If they want to ADD new weapons, that's fine, but I think we have enough weapons as it is thanks to Halo 5.
No that is not what I'm saying, you just are choosing not to listen. I'm pointing out that lore is not some immutable thing with a set standard. You are already picking and choosing which lore you think suits your point such "lasers are more of a Forerunner thing" as if their is some objective standard for weapons that "fit the Covenant" and on top of that the lore doesn't even back you up. The point is that there is lore is no barrier to having the focus rifle return, or changing how the beam rifle functions, or even doing something entirely new.

As for "having enough weapons" are we just done with new things now? Can't remove anything, can't change anything, can't add anything, just a recipe for stagnation.
It's not that I was choosing not to listen, it's that I didn't understand, but honestly if you're just going to keep coming at me like this, then I think we're done talking here. Because I'm honestly not interested in fighting with you. I don't agree with your points or your ideas and you don't agree with mine.
I understand the argument that from a lore and gameplay perspective the Beam Rifle makes more sense. But I cannot accept a weapon that is too similar to another. I hated the SMG for this reason. The SMG was a copy of the AR with less purpose and was simply made the flex dual-wielding. The DMR was a copy of the CE Magnum that was less unique and was made to make marines feel more suited for combat. The problem with the Beam Rifle for me is that, (A) if you are good with the Sniper Rifle you are good with the Beam Rifle. I feel that no weapon should be similar enough to make mastery of one weapon mastery of another. And (B) the Focus Rifle is simply more interesting to me. It feels much more alien. All and all, some weapons should be kept similar. Such as the DMR and the Covenant Carbine. But they should have differences in damage and damage types. For example, the Covenant Carbine should be more effective against shields and the DMR against armor. All and all, the Beam Rifle could be kept if major changes were made to make it feel more unique.

Edit: But I will give subtle advice that maybe we should cool our jets and part as fellow Halo addicts. Remember, we are just talking about a single gun. No need to attack each other. At least I deserve it by trying to eliminate a loved weapon. You don't have to listen to me, but I think my advice could be helpful.
The Beam Rifle in Halo 3 can still be used to take out the power armor of the Brutes even with Tilt enabled, also in comparison to the Sniper Rifle, the shot disappears faster , is way easier to spot and is quieter (but that one thing doesn't do much in the games I think) .

The Focus Rifle is too hard to use and the enemies in campaign are barely a threat with it if you know what you are doing, it is decent unscoped at short range curiously enough.

Just keep in mind that there is also the campaign and the different factions need a weapon to do a specific role, with the attack range and the effectiveness to be a threat.

In Combat Evolved the Wraith and the Fuel Rod Gun are the only way for the Covenant to engage at long range and they aren't effective there. Half of Assault on the Control Room is steamrolling them beyond the (again) attack range of 99% of the enemy outside, even without the tank.

Halo 2 finally allowed the Covenant to be a credible threat in ranged battles between footsoldiers, if Invasion return one day both sides need similar weapons for the common use or level design is required to account for the different weapons.

Just don't forget the NPCs.
I'd be open to the focus rifle replacing the beam rifle. I think it might need some adjustments perhaps, or maybe there could be a mix between the focus and beam rifles (from a gameplay perspective there could be things like charged shots perhaps, but I'd really some aesthetic mixing between the two). I'm not great with the focus rifle, but clearly some people are (or so says my Reach death count). I guess I'd have to get good with it this time...
The Beam Rifle in Halo 3 can still be used to take out the power armor of the Brutes even with Tilt enabled, also in comparison to the Sniper Rifle, the shot disappears faster , is way easier to spot and is quieter (but that one thing doesn't do much in the games I think) .

The Focus Rifle is too hard to use and the enemies in campaign are barely a threat with it if you know what you are doing, it is decent unscoped at short range curiously enough.

Just keep in mind that there is also the campaign and the different factions need a weapon to do a specific role, with the attack range and the effectiveness to be a threat.

In Combat Evolved the Wraith and the Fuel Rod Gun are the only way for the Covenant to engage at long range and they aren't effective there. Half of Assault on the Control Room is steamrolling them beyond the (again) attack range of 99% of the enemy outside, even without the tank.

Halo 2 finally allowed the Covenant to be a credible threat in ranged battles between footsoldiers, if Invasion return one day both sides need similar weapons for the common use or level design is required to account for the different weapons.

Just don't forget the NPCs.
There is plenty of middle ground between having the Covenant be helpless at range and just giving them a purple sniper rifle and calling it a day. The long range Covenant weapon doesn't need to go toe to toe with the UNSC sniper to be a useful weapon, see also: Magnum vs Plasma Pistol.

Considering the NPCs is indeed very important, but I do think we also need to consider the player at the same time. Part of what makes the Covenant fun to fight is that most of their weapons are relatively slow moving and allow the player to actually dodge projectiles, when it comes to weapons like the Beam rifle and the Focus Rifle, you aren't really dodging anything so much as the AI's random number generator rolled a 1. It just doesn't feel good to die to a hitscan/near hitscan weapon like the UNSC sniper/Beam Rifle unless there is a player behind it made the shot due to skill rather than an AI that flipped a coin.

If I were to change the Beam Rifle it would probably look something more like this(only purple) which would projectile(most weapons should be imo) with lower damage, higher rate of fire combined with higher shield damage and a blinding effect ala the Halo 5 stickies. Give or take a minor stun/stagger on hit.

I'm always for as much asymmetry as possible, especially if we are talking about something like Invasion. Asymmetry can be difficult to balance properly, but I think the rewards are so much great if you get it right.
No thank you. I want the iconic Covenant sniper rifle to stay.
But I cannot accept a weapon that is too similar to another. I hated the SMG for this reason. The SMG was a copy of the AR with less purpose and was simply made the flex dual-wielding.

Edit: But I will give subtle advice that maybe we should cool our jets and part as fellow Halo addicts. Remember, we are just talking about a single gun. No need to attack each other. At least I deserve it by trying to eliminate a loved weapon. You don't have to listen to me, but I think my advice could be helpful.
I don't want to start a heated argument or anything. I'd just like to point out that at least the Beam Rifle didn't replace the Sniper Rifle. On the note of the SMG, it is pretty much the same gun as the Assault Rifle, with the same reticle, ammo, and behavior. As for comparing the Beam Rifle to the Sniper Rifle, at least the Beam Rifle behaves somewhat different. It can shoot faster, but that will increase the risk of it over-heating. That risk however, does give it an advantage to the Sniper Rifle, since the Sniper shoots slower (at least when talking about Halos 3-5.)

I also like your advice.
WerepyreND wrote:
There is plenty of middle ground between having the Covenant be helpless at range and just giving them a purple sniper rifle and calling it a day. The long range Covenant weapon doesn't need to go toe to toe with the UNSC sniper to be a useful weapon, see also: Magnum vs Plasma Pistol.

Considering the NPCs is indeed very important, but I do think we also need to consider the player at the same time. Part of what makes the Covenant fun to fight is that most of their weapons are relatively slow moving and allow the player to actually dodge projectiles, when it comes to weapons like the Beam rifle and the Focus Rifle, you aren't really dodging anything so much as the AI's random number generator rolled a 1. It just doesn't feel good to die to a hitscan/near hitscan weapon like the UNSC sniper/Beam Rifle unless there is a player behind it made the shot due to skill rather than an AI that flipped a coin.

If I were to change the Beam Rifle it would probably look something more like this(only purple) which would projectile(most weapons should be imo) with lower damage, higher rate of fire combined with higher shield damage and a blinding effect ala the Halo 5 stickies. Give or take a minor stun/stagger on hit.

I'm always for as much asymmetry as possible, especially if we are talking about something like Invasion. Asymmetry can be difficult to balance properly, but I think the rewards are so much great if you get it right.
In that case levels (or maps whatever) must be designed around those weapons as I said but it must be a threat at the same range at least.
Spoiler:
Show
About the Covenant consider that's your opinion at least.

The Beam Rifle is just there to give the Covenant a sniper weapon and that's all, if it doesn't kill at long range fast enough it's not good because the target may run away.

They can keep the Focus Rifle's need to keep the beam on the target but with a serious slow down to bipeds and why not the performance of vehicle in some way.

And name the weapon Beam Rifle.
Better. Make the binary rifle how it originally was, and make the new focus/beam rifle like the H5 binary (quick, long range burst but extremely strong) and overheats if you shoot 2 consecutive times.
My sandbox philosophy is to allow for as many weapons as possible. Not everyone is gonna use or appreciate each weapon and that is entirely OK. The point is, even if people argue about some weapons being too similar, each would still fulfill different roles and playstyles.
That is for example how I feel about the SMG, AR, and SAW.
I personally think that is something overlooked when it comes to weapons or even characters when it comes to video games. Ultimately, we are suppose to be having fun with the game and the variety helps us to find that fun. Too often I think people are focused on what's optimal instead of the aspects they enjoy.
Of course, I'm not entirely casting flak on people who want to find and play with what they believe to be optimal, as I think that's just to be another way some find enjoyment in a game.
Of course, if people are so focused(heh heh gid it) on the Beam Rifle. I agree that mixing the two together and calling it the Beam Rifle would keep people happy.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2