Then please, feel free to go complain about another game somewhere else.
Alright then. Go wreck people with the Sniper Rifle in CQC.
Quote:Please elaborate on why this is bad? Aren't all guns in the end hold shoot button??
Such inane responses. Almost makes me not want to bother.
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.