Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Someone Explain the Hate for Automatics

OP m0rtolife692

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
Without using the terms "noob weapon" or "no skill." I've seen enough of these threads and I never see good arguments coming from the anti-automatics group so let me make a public request for those specifically. After playing Halo 5 a decent bit, I honestly can't see where they're coming from. The automatics perform well at their optimal range where it makes sense. The Assault rifle is effective at close range and with some skill, medium range as well, as a jack-of-all-trades weapon should. The SMG absolutely shreds at close range but anything past maybe 15-20 meters and you need to be using smart-scope and aiming at the head to have a chance at winning. The Storm Rifle is pretty much the same as the AR but it overheats so quickly, you'd be hard pressed to win a 2v1 even if you fired first.

The competition here is the Magnum, which in my OPINION is performing outside of a sidearm's usual role, and being forced into engagements where it normally wouldn't be used in. Pistols are fallback weapons and play a secondary role to a rifle or other primary, but should never play the primary role themselves unless no other option is available. That being said, I think the magnum is performing fine in game and does not need any re-balancing. It wins most engagements when played in it's in-game role, as a medium range "rifle" and normally falls short beyond that role.

Honestly, to the people hating on automatics, I wonder if we're playing the same game when I read your threads. I've got my group's observations as well on this, but pistols can still beat the AR at close range with some consistent shot-placement and my AR gets me killed more often than not. The only occasions I win in are when I have at least a heartbeat's more time putting shots on my opponent with it or when someone closes the distance and I'm forced to fallback to the weapon more suited for the role, which in this discussion would be an AR or SMG.

On that little bit, I'll be honest and say I get a bit heated when I see people say it's a noob tactic to switch to an automatic when either you or the enemy closes the distance. I want to see the logic behind that statement because to me, it's the same as someone saying "switching to a BR when someone is a bit too far away is a noob tactic." See what I'm getting at here? It's simple logic. If someone gets close to you, and you have a weapon better suited to close range, use that one, don't sit there trying to make headshots with a Magnum or BR in things as fast-paced and frantic as CQC, it's not going to end well for you. Hell, I even feel bad when I shred someone with an SMG because I'm a defensive player, I like to keep my distance and pick off from afar, but I keep an SMG on me whenever I can find one because people like to get close to me and break that little comfort bubble, so I punish them for it with lead rain. I don't like having to do it, they don't like being on the receiving end, but they're almost always the one's that close on me.

I don't know guys, I might not be getting it, but this is all coming from a veteran Halo player that doesn't even like Halo 5. I hate the competitiveness and feel of Halo 5, I much preferred Halo 3, Reach, and even the way Halo 4 felt, but I still think Halo 5's sandbox is the most balanced one yet. Everything works well in their designated role and everything has a counter, the way every FPS game should be. Getting sprayed down by an SMG? Pistol him/her from outside his/her range. Getting picked off by a BR? Snipe them with a DMR or Sniper. Sniper giving you a headache (literally and figuratively)? Flank it and get close so that tiny reticle is a liability, it's all that simple guys, it really is, and besides the rare exception, it's like that in most FPS' across the board. Like I said, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and everyone else knows the game better than me, let me know what you think.

Now listen to this to cool off before you type those angry responses calling me a noob- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKsEqFgKhoA
Automatic's in a nutshell:
1.Hold shoot button
2.Get kill

Pro Automatic technique:
1. Spartan Charge
2. Shoot left ankle for killshot
3. Get kill

*Edit: Remember to work on your straight line AR strafe for maximum effectiveness. Don't forget that cheeky beat down for a quick kill.
Matic wrote:
Automatic's in a nutshell:
1.Hold shoot button
2.Get kill

Pro Automatic technique:
1. Spartan Charge
2. Shoot left ankle for killshot
3. Get kill
Please elaborate on why this is bad? Aren't all guns in the end hold shoot button??
Matic wrote:
Automatic's in a nutshell:
1.Hold shoot button
2.Get kill

Pro Automatic technique:
1. Spartan Charge
2. Shoot left ankle for killshot
3. Get kill
Precision's in a nutshell:
1.Press button 4-5 times
2.Get kill

Pro Precision technique:
1.Spartan Charge
2.Shoot left ankle twice for killshot
3.Get kill

Well golly, it sure is easy to demonize what I don't like when I simplify it so much! The truth of the matter is, anti-automatics refuse to acknowledge that one cannot just point and shoot with the "Big 3" automatics, you can miss, they aren't firing tracking bullets. They have bigger aiming reticles, but they don't cover the whole screen, and their damage and accuracy falloff starts much closer than your precious Magnums and BR's. You have to place you shots and watch your fire-rate so recoil doesn't take your shots off the target.

But no, go ahead and keep pretending automatics are insta-win weapons as a way to mask the fact that you just plain old got out-played and are way too salty over it.
Quote:
Please elaborate on why this is bad? Aren't all guns in the end hold shoot button??
Alright then. Go wreck people with the Sniper Rifle in CQC.
Such inane responses. Almost makes me not want to bother.
Quote:
Pistols are Sidearms.
Pistols are whatever the hell the developer makes them out to be. Complete non-sequitur.
Quote:
Pistols can beat the AR with consistent shot placement.
AR Killtimes:
1.1 (Headshot) and 1.5 (Body)
Pistol Killtimes
1.57 (Headshot) and 2.2 (Body)
If you have perfect accuracy and the AR user somehow can't get the ridiculously easy to obtain 1.1s minimum killtime then yeah, it's theoretically possible, albeit extremely unlikely.
The SMG and Storm Rifle have a 1.03s bodyshot killtime. It's literally impossible for a Magnum user to defeat that even with perfect aim.
Quote:
People say it's a noob tactic to pull out automatics in CQC.
No.
Some guy defends automatics by saying they take skill solely because you have to know what the proper range to use them in is.
We correctly point out that isn't skillful or tactical, it's just common sense, and not even unique to automatics, you have to have proper positioning with most weapons.
I'm not saying it's a "noob tactic". I'm saying it doesn't even qualify as a tactic to begin with.
Quote:
they aren't firing tracking bullets
Actually they literally -Yoinking!- do. >_<
What's harder? Lining up a shot with a small crosshair, or moving a giant crosshair over someone in CQC and holding right trigger? Even if the crosshair isn't exactly centered on their body you're still doing major damage because of spread and magnetism, I mean -Yoink- I can even find clips of people doing damage when their crosshair is off to the side of someone.
Should be self evident from a few minutes of gameplay but you all love to deny the truth and pretend automatics take just as much skill as a sniper rifle does.
Quote:
got out-played
Rofl.
Quote:
Without using the terms "noob weapon" or "no skill.
"Tell me why I'm wrong without actually telling me the obvious reason why I'm wrong."
Ramir3z77 wrote:
Quote:
Please elaborate on why this is bad? Aren't all guns in the end hold shoot button??
Alright then. Go wreck people with the Sniper Rifle in CQC.
Such inane responses. Almost makes me not want to bother.
Then please, feel free to go complain about another game somewhere else.

Again, it comes back to people feel that a "wider skill gap" is somehow better for the game. The problem that anti-autos like the ones on here don't seem to understand is that skill gap needs to be balanced just like everything else. Too wide a skill gap and new and casual players won't play anymore because they are getting wrecked too often. Too narrow a skill gap (see Halo 4) and the skilled players think "why bother."

Now what the previous poster, posting numbers and all is fine, fails to realize is that even with an automatic....people can still MISS (or in the case of the storm rifle, can overheat). Thrusting, jumping, crouching, etc can still throw off the aim of an auto. Helping to re-tilt the scales back in favor of the precision player. A player with better aim and movement can still win a one on one a majority of the time. There is still a skill gap. It's now just not exclusive to the weapon use, movement is now something that can increase or decrease the skill gap as well.

In other words, people are just mad they can't do what they did in Halo 3 anymore and have to be proficient at more than one game mechanic.
Quote:
Then please, feel free to go complain about another game somewhere else.
Wooo awesome -Yoinking!- retort bro. "Go play another game." Yeah that's totally relevant to my arguments. You sure told me, you sure rebutted my points.

In hindsight that song the OP linked probably isn't a bad idea.
Ramir3z77 wrote:
Quote:
Then please, feel free to go complain about another game somewhere else.
Wooo awesome -Yoinking!- retort bro. "Go play another game." Yeah that's totally relevant to my arguments. You sure told me, you sure rebutted my points.
You must have missed the 2 other paragraphs that followed "BRO".
I don't think anyone's issue is that the automatics are viable. I know I'm glad that the weapon sandbox is finally full of useful guns. I think everyone's problem with the automatics is that while they are very easy to use, all too often they beat the much harder pistol in 1v1 battles in what SHOULD be the pistol's range. I don't mind the AR beating the pistol at close range, but the AR is stepping on the pistol's toes by being that good out to mid range. As it is now, a pistol can beat an AR at midrange, but he has to be absolutely perfect, and he'll still come away with only a sliver of health. That's messed up. The skill/reward ratio is way out of whack. One guy is doing something skillful, and the other guy is not.

The skill in the AR should be knowing when to use it, and right now the margin for error is way too wide.
Matic wrote:
Automatic's in a nutshell:
1.Hold shoot button
2.Get kill

Pro Automatic technique:
1. Spartan Charge
2. Shoot left ankle for killshot
3. Get kill

*Edit: Remember to work on your straight line AR strafe for maximum effectiveness. Don't forget that cheeky beat down for a quick kill.
Lol, this helped me so much in making points for other threads ;)
Hard VVay wrote:
I don't think anyone's issue is that the automatics are viable. I know I'm glad that the weapon sandbox is finally full of useful guns. I think everyone's problem with the automatics is that while they are very easy to use, all too often they beat the much harder pistol in 1v1 battles in what SHOULD be the pistol's range. I don't mind the AR beating the pistol at close range, but the AR is stepping on the pistol's toes by being that good out to mid range. As it is now, a pistol can beat an AR at midrange, but he has to be absolutely perfect, and he'll still come away with only a sliver of health. That's messed up. The skill/reward ratio is way out of whack. One guy is doing something skillful, and the other guy is not.

The skill in the AR should be knowing when to use it, and right now the margin for error is way too wide.
End the thread here. Nothing more needs to be said.
Hard VVay wrote:
I don't think anyone's issue is that the automatics are viable. I know I'm glad that the weapon sandbox is finally full of useful guns. I think everyone's problem with the automatics is that while they are very easy to use, all too often they beat the much harder pistol in 1v1 battles in what SHOULD be the pistol's range. I don't mind the AR beating the pistol at close range, but the AR is stepping on the pistol's toes by being that good out to mid range. As it is now, a pistol can beat an AR at midrange, but he has to be absolutely perfect, and he'll still come away with only a sliver of health. That's messed up. The skill/reward ratio is way out of whack. One guy is doing something skillful, and the other guy is not.

The skill in the AR should be knowing when to use it, and right now the margin for error is way too wide.
They just take little skill, are nearly as good as power weapons and kill insanely fast
Hard VVay wrote:
I don't think anyone's issue is that the automatics are viable. I know I'm glad that the weapon sandbox is finally full of useful guns. I think everyone's problem with the automatics is that while they are very easy to use, all too often they beat the much harder pistol in 1v1 battles in what SHOULD be the pistol's range. I don't mind the AR beating the pistol at close range, but the AR is stepping on the pistol's toes by being that good out to mid range. As it is now, a pistol can beat an AR at midrange, but he has to be absolutely perfect, and he'll still come away with only a sliver of health. That's messed up. The skill/reward ratio is way out of whack. One guy is doing something skillful, and the other guy is not.

The skill in the AR should be knowing when to use it, and right now the margin for error is way too wide.
....that insinuates that use of an AR with an opponent at mid range or longer takes no skill. This is true if your opponent is standing still. But considering the amount of movement mechanics now available it does take some skill to get a kill....at any range really.

I'm totally fine with some overlap of the two. What happens is that movement skill is now just as important as aim skill in a 1v1.
Matic wrote:
Automatic's in a nutshell:
1.Hold shoot button
2.Get kill

Pro Automatic technique:
1. Spartan Charge
2. Shoot left ankle for killshot
3. Get kill

*Edit: Remember to work on your straight line AR strafe for maximum effectiveness. Don't forget that cheeky beat down for a quick kill.
So you're saying that holding down the shoot button grants the player an "autoaim mode" and all bullets hit the target?
Tazzman29 wrote:
Hard VVay wrote:
I don't think anyone's issue is that the automatics are viable. I know I'm glad that the weapon sandbox is finally full of useful guns. I think everyone's problem with the automatics is that while they are very easy to use, all too often they beat the much harder pistol in 1v1 battles in what SHOULD be the pistol's range. I don't mind the AR beating the pistol at close range, but the AR is stepping on the pistol's toes by being that good out to mid range. As it is now, a pistol can beat an AR at midrange, but he has to be absolutely perfect, and he'll still come away with only a sliver of health. That's messed up. The skill/reward ratio is way out of whack. One guy is doing something skillful, and the other guy is not.

The skill in the AR should be knowing when to use it, and right now the margin for error is way too wide.
....that insinuates that use of an AR with an opponent at mid range or longer takes no skill. This is true if your opponent is standing still. But considering the amount of movement mechanics now available it does take some skill to get a kill....at any range really.

I'm totally fine with some overlap of the two. What happens is that movement skill is now just as important as aim skill in a 1v1.
The problem is that at medium range, it's practically a coin flip whether the pistol user or the AR user will win, but one weapon (the AR) is WAAAY easier to use than the other. In arena, this makes up far too many engagements, given the AR's ease of use compared to the pistol's.

You keep bringing up movement mechanics to defend the AR's ease of use. And yeah, it's a bit harder to aim the AR in this game than in other Halo games, but that's negated by the weapon's power. And probably more importantly, you make it sound like the pistol user doesn't also have to contend with his opponents strafe and thrusts. He still has to do that too. In a 1v1 fight between an AR and Pistol, the AR is way, way easier to use than a pistol, and it has the advantage in a disproportionate amount of engagements, to the point where it becomes harder than it should be for a skilled player to distinguish himself. That's the whole anti-automatic argument.

Some of the points you're making lead me to believe that you do not play against skilled players regularly.
Why are people arguing about the range to use the weapon? Using Ar in long range is just stupid and in close range more smart, no skill involved in here. What makes a player skilled in this game comes from basic things, good aim, using evasive abilities and situational awarenes. If someone has a good aim with the sniper at close range and is able to effectively get kills, he has skill. Simple as that.
Ramir3z77 wrote:
Quote:
Please elaborate on why this is bad? Aren't all guns in the end hold shoot button??
Alright then. Go wreck people with the Sniper Rifle in CQC.
Such inane responses. Almost makes me not want to bother.
Quote:
Pistols are Sidearms.
Pistols are whatever the hell the developer makes them out to be. Complete non-sequitur.
Quote:
Pistols can beat the AR with consistent shot placement.
AR Killtimes:
1.1 (Headshot) and 1.5 (Body)
Pistol Killtimes
1.57 (Headshot) and 2.2 (Body)
If you have perfect accuracy and the AR user somehow can't get the ridiculously easy to obtain 1.1s minimum killtime then yeah, it's theoretically possible.
The SMG and Storm Rifle have a 1.03s bodyshot killtime. It's literally impossible for a Magnum user to defeat that even with perfect aim.
Quote:
People say it's a noob tactic to pull out automatics in CQC.
No.
Some guy defends automatics by saying they take skill solely because you have to know what the proper range to use them in is.
We correctly point out that isn't skillful or tactical, it's just common sense, and not even unique to automatics, you have to have proper positioning with most weapons.
I'm not saying it's a "noob tactic". I'm saying it doesn't even qualify as a tactic to begin with.
Quote:
they aren't firing tracking bullets
Actually they literally -Yoinking!- do. >_<

What's harder? Lining up a shot with a small crosshair, or moving a giant crosshair over someone in CQC and holding right trigger? Even if the crosshair isn't exactly centered on their body you're still doing major damage.

Should be self evident from a few minutes of gameplay but you all love to deny the truth and pretend automatics take just as much skill as a sniper rifle does.
Quote:
got out-played
Rofl.
I've no idea how to use the quote feature with any precision, so bear with me please.

I'll start with the third response. You and every other person that uses this little fact are forgetting that there's a person on the other end of the controller, not a robot, people are not perfect and can make mistakes, so assuming that literally everyone using the AR will never miss a shot is inane and ignorant to say the least. Not to mention that putting distance between yourself and the AR user is an easily accomplished way to give yourself an edge in these engagements.

Fourth response. No I didn't, and you can piss and moan all you want about it, but at the end of the day, if you're in a close quarters scenario, you'll choose a PDW over a DMR in battlefield, a shotgun over a pistol in COD, A gravity hammer over a light-rifle in Halo, etc. SWAT or the Military don't use Marksman rifles in close quarters, and given that each example I've given is analogous to our situation between the Mag and AR, I think it's safe to assume that the concept is universal and not exclusive to Halo so the concept still applies, it makes more -Yoinking!- sense to use a close-range weapon at close range.

Fifth response, this method sucks, please help me. Purely in the sense that when your reticle is on or VERY near the target, the bullet magnetism pulls your shots towards them, but this is present on nearly EVERY GUN IN THE GAME and cannot be used to demonize automatics solely and not acknowledge that almost every weapon has magnetism. And anyway, you completely spun my point to suit your needs. Obviously I was saying that you cannot look in the general direction of an enemy and spray them down, you must put your reticle on them, same as a precision weapon, but it's easier to do when you're close. And again, no one said anything of the sort, no one believes automatics take the same amount of skill as a sniper, far from it actually, but you and others arguing like you keep pretending that automatics are insta-win, catch-all weapons with no downsides.

Fifth "response." Thanks for proving my point. Yes, if you lost to an AR when you had a Magnum or BR, you probably got outplayed. You either missed more shots than your opponent did, they caught you with your pants down, you challenged and got rekt, they challenged and you got rekt, that's how it is. If you're losing to AR's anywhere past close range and maybe short-medium range, you -Yoinked!- up, and it's on you that you lost, not the opponent, and not their AR.

Now it's my turn, how about what I consistently pointed to during that original post, that the AR has finite effective range and you can very easily defeat one by simply backpedaling or boosting backwards? Why ignore that point? Like I said, it's more of the exact some null arguments full of holes that don't amount to any meaningful points. Why not mention real issues like how an SMG with stabilization jets has next to know muzzle-climb? That's broken AF but no one says anything about it. No, you'd all rather play the victim when you get killed by something you don't like instead of sucking it up and learning how to counter it.

Here, right now, go look at my stats, I'm an average player at best with a barely positive K/D and my most used weapons in Arena are the Magnum and Battle Rifle. I'm telling you from experience, that I rarely lose to AR's or SMG's when I have the ability to stack the fight in my favor. Again, if you're consistently losing engagements with AR's, you're the problem, you need to stay back and play more defensively when the automatics are in-play.
And now you're giving me advice on how to counter automatics that is basically just "stay out of range." Thanks for telling me what I already knew, knowing how to counter automatics doesn't magically make them better designed conceptually. Really lovely that, as with most of these arguments, you assume that if I have a problem with automatics it must be because I must die to them all the time. Sorry, dead wrong.

You catch someone in CQC using an automatic and it IS a guaranteed kill unless you lack thumbs. Try getting a five-shot in the same range and telling me that it's equally easy. No, catching someone in CQC isn't "outplaying" them, my god. All guns have magnetism, but being "very near" with a small reticle is much different than being "very near" with a gigantic one, and I'll say it as many times as I need too, all this -Yoink- should be -Yoinking!- obvious and self-evident to anyone who has actually played the game.

"People using automatics can miss shots too you know." Yeah, except it's much harder to actually miss shots and missed shots are much less significant due to killtime and fire-rate.

That's all you're getting. I'm done and I'm unsure why I bothered to post to begin with.
Hard VVay wrote:
I don't think anyone's issue is that the automatics are viable. I know I'm glad that the weapon sandbox is finally full of useful guns. I think everyone's problem with the automatics is that while they are very easy to use, all too often they beat the much harder pistol in 1v1 battles in what SHOULD be the pistol's range. I don't mind the AR beating the pistol at close range, but the AR is stepping on the pistol's toes by being that good out to mid range. As it is now, a pistol can beat an AR at midrange, but he has to be absolutely perfect, and he'll still come away with only a sliver of health. That's messed up. The skill/reward ratio is way out of whack. One guy is doing something skillful, and the other guy is not.

The skill in the AR should be knowing when to use it, and right now the margin for error is way too wide.
See, I haven't experienced that in really any of my games but it could be my playstyle. I'll try a more aggressive style next time and see if I notice it more there. In all my matches, AR's seem to lose out to Mags and BR's anywhere past 10-15 meters fairly consistently with some obvious exceptions popping up due to individual player skill or any myriad of other factors.
Ramir3z77 wrote:
And now you're giving me advice on how to counter automatics that is basically just "stay out of range." Thanks for telling me what I already knew, knowing how to counter automatics doesn't magically make them better designed conceptually. Really lovely that, as with most of these arguments, you assume that if I have a problem with automatics it must be because I must die to them all the time. Sorry, dead wrong.

You catch someone in CQC using an automatic and it IS a guaranteed kill unless you lack thumbs. Try getting a five-shot in the same range and telling me that it's equally easy. No, catching someone in CQC isn't "outplaying" them, my god. All guns have magnetism, but being "very near" with a small reticle is much different than being "very near" with a gigantic one, and I'll say it as many times as I need too, all this -Yoink- should be -Yoinking!- obvious and self-evident to anyone who has actually played the game.

"People using automatics can miss shots too you know." Yeah, except it's much harder to actually miss shots and missed shots are much less significant due to killtime and fire-rate.

That's all you're getting. I'm done and I'm unsure why I bothered to post to begin with.
Alright, then let's try a different approach. Tell me how automatics should be changed so they would be "balanced" to you. Reduce their range? Maybe for the AR, but the SMG and SR would essentially be shotguns with longer ttk's at that point, so that's a no-go. Nerf their damage? Well, then they have a longer ttk and wouldn't be able to stand up to the precision weapons and no one would use them ever, which is not what 343i wants. So what do you propose? And if you aren't getting killed by automatics enough to warrant you having an issue, what's the -Yoinking!- issue in the first place?

Cute that you think catching someone by surprise is the only way close quarters fights happen. People close the distance, that's how people play, and if you happen to rush someone and get close for a melee maybe or you're just better up close, why the hell should they handicap themselves by using a weapon not suited to the situation? Because you think you should win, that's it, cute. So for the umpteenth time, someone switching to a weapon better suited to that specific situation is the better tactical choice, and if they kill you, then yes, they made better choices than you, you were outplayed, you can't sensibly argue that. As for bullet magnetism, you're arguing with yourself, because no one said anything like what you're arguing. No one ever said automatics required equal skill to use, but you claiming they are as easy as point and shoot is sad and misinformed.

"lalalala, easier to use, lalala" Yeah, you caught me, they are easier to use, so play your -Yoinking!- weapon to it's strength and use what's at your disposal. Toss a grenade, backpedal, boost, strafe, crouch, retreat, jump, flank, do what it takes to give yourself an edge, that's a hallmark trait of a competent player, if you can't do any of those, then you lose, respawn, and try again.

Taking your ball and going home after you're the one who got pissy, yeah you sure showed me, glad to know that I've been arguing with a -Yoink- child. It was fun, bud, maybe reduce your sodium intake and come back with an actual argument.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12