Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Someone Explain the Hate for Automatics

OP m0rtolife692

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 12
In my experience pistols beat AR almost 90% of the time. It's almost foolish for anyone to use AR at all even at close range now. And honestly that kinda sucks. AR is basically useless and when arena or warzone starts everyone just switches to pistols. There isn't a balance between use from what I've seen. No one uses AR in my games.
Tazzman29 wrote:
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.
"Too wide a skill gap and new and casual players won't play anymore because they are getting wrecked too often". That is utter horse -Yoink-, people did not feel that way in Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo Reach, I don't know where this idea was born from. And yes it does suck, that even if you are a good, invested player your efforts at mastering a precision weapon are basically meaningless in the face of autos that will kill you faster anyway. Halo 3 was the best Halo for this balance, because yes the AR and other automatics had the potential to kill you faster, but if you were a good player with a steady aim, you could overcome someone running straight towards you with an AR and out play them. This is why a really good level 50 tier player could solo 3 considerably worse players with a well-placed grenade and come out on top.

I fail to see why wanting good players to be able to dominate those that are worse than them, due to lack of practice and time invested is a bad thing... If you take the time to master something like the BR which has a reasonably fast TTK if you land all four shots on the head, you should be able to dominate someone using an automatic rifle, because they are (by design) much, much easier to fully utilize and achieve the maximum kill time.

I don't get where people are getting this idea that having good players dominate bad players will drive people away from the game, this is not the case of League of Legends, not for Counter Strike and it wasn't for Halo, so why all of a sudden would it be now? I am truly curious what research has been done to confirm this assumption so many of you "Big skill gaps are bad" guys have. Yes, of course, if a game has a poor ranking system and extremely good players are being matched with the worst of the worst, then yes this would be bad and would most certainly discourage many, but that is not the case.

Most people that are complaining about the autos being too strong aren't really good players (high diamond - Onyx and Champion) , getting dominated by Platinum and lower players. It's people in high ELOs facing other competent players that rarely miss, getting sprayed down by an AR from mid-range and having almost no way to fight against its sheer power because of how fast it and other autos kill you, upon the plethora of other abilities that make it harder of precisions to do their job, whilst having no way to counter powerful automatics.

At high-level play, it is almost impossible to simply turn on someone with an auto and out shoot them, even if you have MUCH better aim, which I personally don't think is right at all.
WHHHHHHHHHY is anyone using a long range weapon in CQC?!
You are honestly going to hate on auto's taking less skill to use in CQC? How about long range combat?
"But, Razz why the -Yoink- would you use a short range weapon in long range combat?"
Ikr?
Then counter a person using the AR or smg with an smg... Or better yet, keep them in a good far range where their bullets can't hit you. This why my ideal loadout is a BR or DMR with SMG. Like this is basic Halo knowledge. Thanks to the whining of players about this, 343 changed certain weapons on maps when it was fine at first. -facepalm- BR and DMR are effective and powerful at their maximum ranges, much like the CQC weapons. Understand it and utilize it for the correct situations.
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.
This is probably the -Yoink- argument I've heard yet for why automatics are OP
because I suck lol
WHHHHHHHHHY is anyone using a long range weapon in CQC?!
You are honestly going to hate on auto's taking less skill to use in CQC? How about long range combat?
"But, Razz why the -Yoink- would you use a short range weapon in long range combat?"
Ikr?
Yes, but what do 343i define as "CQC"? CQC to 343 seems to mean medium range, maybe 18 in-game meters, which is not close quarters at all. Nobody is saying that if an automatic is on your face, you should still be able to beat them, that would be stupid. We're saying that autos should behave like CQC weapons, not mid-long range weapons that you can scope in with to reduce bullet spread. If I see someone trying to spray me down with an auto from 10-15 meters away, if I have a steady aim I should be able to shut them down well before they drop my shields. But this is not the case with most "standard" autos...
Then counter a person using the AR or smg with an smg... Or better yet, keep them in a good far range where their bullets can't hit you. This why my ideal loadout is a BR or DMR with SMG. Like this is basic Halo knowledge. Thanks to the whining of players about this, 343 changed certain weapons on maps when it was fine at first. -facepalm-
That kind of H5 far range does not exist on most of the arena maps, nor should it. Autos need to do less damage at mid-long range. Automatics should only be able to light you up like they currently do at mid-range, if you are right in someone's face.
I don't get it either OP. To the hold button and shot crowd you still have to aim and be able to move to shot an enemy. Your argument doesn't add up. Spartan charging requires very little skill, but auto weapons still require one to aim and move skillfully.
SanctusBit wrote:
I don't get it either OP. To the hold button and shot crowd you still have to aim and be able to move to shot an enemy. Your argument doesn't add up. Spartan charging requires very little skill, but auto weapons still require one to aim and move skillfully.
Yes, you are right. But to a much lesser extent than precisions do.
OP, I'm going to be honest, I only read up until where you said "the magnum functions outside the norm for a sidearm" or words to that effect. And THAT right there is enough for a Halo player to wave off your arguments. You are attempting to cram Halo into this sandbox it shouldn't be in, doesn't belong in, and wouldn't work for the game.

Halo is an arena based shooter. It's sandbox has always revolved around a utility weapon. Or, a jack of all trades master of none. The BR has historically been the most common one. Reach had the DMR and halo 1 had the magnum.

You believe that a sidearm should be weak. That just because it's a pistol it needs to be weak. This is flawed thinking. You're just assuming that because every other game has weak pistols that Halo needs them too. But in Halo 5 the pistol is the utility weapon. At least one of them. And certainly the most common since we spawn with it.

The problem with Halo 5 and automatics in general is that they are essentially out performing the pistol at questionable ranges. I don't think it's TOO drastic. I think they are close to fine. But I think they are a tad too powerful.

Which brings me to my point: people don't like automatics for a number of reasons. And you can't just say "explain it without saying X or Y." Because you can't just take away arguments simply because you said so. So I'll say it. A lot of people don't like them because they require next to no skill to use. And in an arena based shooter, skill is important and valued.

Let me use an analogy: league of Legends (keep in mind I don't know what the meta is now. So let me use last seasons) -

Why do you think no one cared if you did well using master Yi? A champion that really only requires one click for him to do massive damage? As opposed to Zed or Lee Sin, both champions that require a depth of knowledge that "faceroll" champions do not have.

Skill is valued in gaming. Especially games that have large competitive followings like Halo and League of Legends.

Historically, your BR could beat an Ar at a moderately close range if you landed all your shorts.

YOUR SKILL WAS REWARDED.

Automatics? You arent rewarded for doing anything other than simply being close to the enemy player.

This is why Automatics are frowned upon. Especially in Halo 5 where things like the SMG and storm rifle exist, where they spawn insanely fast and can melt an enemy player before they can even respond sometimes.

Precision weapons require more than just pulling the trigger. You need to learn about player movements, strafe, positioning, everything really. Automatics require luck and proximity, neither of which require much thought.

Hope this helps you understand OP.
Forerunners bless you. The league analogy was perfect, this pretty much sums it up.
Because non-automatic weapons take more skill to use?
Yeah I think especially with Halo especially over other FPS, each weapon has it's time and place. It's up to the player to maximize effectiveness of what weapons they have.... meaning pulling out an automatic when the time calls for it. People shouldn't be shamed into not using weapons just because a group of people believe it doesn't require skill to use... which is completely subjective in the first place.

EDIT: I think one of the biggest problems with the Halo community is this irrational belief that the only time "skill" is used is once bullets start flying. But in reality, skill is used from the time the match starts until it ends. It takes skill to navigate the map in a way to not get caught in bad situations, whether that being a situation in which you are outnumbered by enemies, or over powered by an enemy's weaponry, or whatever the case may be.
The AR is the best for mid-short because of it's high damage. Power weapons are no match for the AR (unless shotgun and sometimes stormrifle). Then there's the SMG. The best for short (15meters) range. For example the carbine is no match for AR for close range. There is nothing to say about the saw variants.
Wow that's actually pretty cool
The "competitive" players think they own the game, and that anything they disagree with = Hitler.

So let them whine.
This is way I play WARZONE most of the time...
Well each has there own skill set just people see semi auto more skill because it takes better aiming and strafing while with auto you hold and the general location of the person not having to aim for heads and etc.
I love the auto hate. Go ahead use that magnum cqc with me when I have an smg. I don't give a damn which takes more skill, I'll have one more kill and you'll have one more death.
Personally lately ive been loving that the ar can actually get kills because in every halo game to date until halo 5 the AR was a joke of a weapon. In h3 it was used somewhat effectively to get easy melee kills but aside from that it could barely hit anything 5 metres in front of it. In halo 5 90% of AR vs Pistol fights in close range will result in the Pistol winning the fight mainly because when strafing the ar hits less shots and its effectiveness dwindles while the magnum is still very potent due to no reticle bloom and recoil to deal with and the fact that it can kill very fast if you pull off a perfect kill.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 12