Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection (Xbox)

Possible Campaign Weapon Changes

OP SilverBarrel831

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Unless you mean changes to MCC that make the weapons like the original games, I don't want the weapons to be different. I think the guns should behave exactly as they did before on the original games.
Hey everyone, like you guys I love the guns of Halo, their designs, their sounds, their effectiveness.

However I feel some entries into the games have weapons that are far weaker than they need to be and at the very least need a little nudge in the right direction.

Now with this thread being Campaign primarily I don't feel it'll annoy people with some of the suggestions I make.

Any statistics I use I get from videos by the youtuber Generalkidd, where he puts stats he's gathered from his PC into videos to compare the same weapon class for each halo game (pistols, shotguns etc) even if these stats are not accurate I will be using them to emphasise what I mean. On another note, this is not a collaborative effort, he and I do not know each other, nor does he know I'm using his videos as a reference.

I'll be making three suggestions I think are fair in terms of buffs/changes for weapons without overpowering them.
A Simple changeA Moderate change And a Cheeky change (as it is me just wishful thinking and not to be taken too seriously) which would alter the weapons stats even further than previously suggested yet still attempting at keeping it fair.

As this is the opening post. I'm not putting all the weapons I think could be tidied up a little bit. If this thread goes well we can brainstorm together other "fair" changes to weapons, and maybe some for MCC's Halo Reach when it gets here.

What do you think so far?
I agree with most of these changes. And as long as these changes are kept strictly to the campaign portions of the games, I have no problem. It seems to me that when Bungie was balancing their weapons in later games, they made sure that things were balanced for multiplayer, but not quite for campaign. I honestly believe that the weapons in the campaign should be balanced for the campaign, while multiplayer weapons are balanced for multiplayer, as the two experiences are very different from one another in many ways, and thus should have different balances for their sandboxes. Campaign maps can easily be edited so that the values of the weapons found within are only affected within the campaign. That's actually how everything works in terms of map file structure. As someone who has modded campaigns for Halo CE on the PC, I know what I'm talking about.

By the way, you missed out on editing weapons for Halo CE.

MA5B Assault Rifle-Simple Change - increased accuracy by changing error angles from 2 - 6 to 1 - 3, and changing the rate of fire from 15 - 15 to 10 - 15 with a fire rate increase in 1/2 a second. Leave everything else alone.
Hey everyone, like you guys I love the guns of Halo, their designs, their sounds, their effectiveness.

However I feel some entries into the games have weapons that are far weaker than they need to be and at the very least need a little nudge in the right direction.

Now with this thread being Campaign primarily I don't feel it'll annoy people with some of the suggestions I make.

Any statistics I use I get from videos by the youtuber Generalkidd, where he puts stats he's gathered from his PC into videos to compare the same weapon class for each halo game (pistols, shotguns etc) even if these stats are not accurate I will be using them to emphasise what I mean. On another note, this is not a collaborative effort, he and I do not know each other, nor does he know I'm using his videos as a reference.

I'll be making three suggestions I think are fair in terms of buffs/changes for weapons without overpowering them.
A Simple changeA Moderate change And a Cheeky change (as it is me just wishful thinking and not to be taken too seriously) which would alter the weapons stats even further than previously suggested yet still attempting at keeping it fair.

As this is the opening post. I'm not putting all the weapons I think could be tidied up a little bit. If this thread goes well we can brainstorm together other "fair" changes to weapons, and maybe some for MCC's Halo Reach when it gets here.

What do you think so far?
I agree with most of these changes. And as long as these changes are kept strictly to the campaign portions of the games, I have no problem. It seems to me that when Bungie was balancing their weapons in later games, they made sure that things were balanced for multiplayer, but not quite for campaign. I honestly believe that the weapons in the campaign should be balanced for the campaign, while multiplayer weapons are balanced for multiplayer, as the two experiences are very different from one another in many ways, and thus should have different balances for their sandboxes. Campaign maps can easily be edited so that the values of the weapons found within are only affected within the campaign. That's actually how everything works in terms of map file structure. As someone who has modded campaigns for Halo CE on the PC, I know what I'm talking about.

By the way, you missed out on editing weapons for Halo CE.

MA5B Assault Rifle-Simple Change - increased accuracy by changing error angles from 2 - 6 to 1 - 3, and changing the rate of fire from 15 - 15 to 10 - 15 with a fire rate increase in 1/2 a second. Leave everything else alone.
I didnt want to change anything in Halo: C.E because I'm pretty sure if I suggested anything, people would find where I live, hang, draw and quarter me.

And yes of course campaign only balancing. Admittedly I'm not very good at Multiplayer games, at least VS stuff. Some games I find myself rather competent at like Battlefield 3 and to a lesser extent 4, but I'm terrible at Call of Duty. And honestly I prefer a story, which is why I never got into games like Rainbow Six Seige.

I'd like to see Campaign weapons primarily made fair for their campaigns, but so many people feel doing so would tarnish the classics. I can understand where they come from, even if I don't particularly agree. It seems if it possible to make it an optional choice in a menu, they'd be more up for it.

I wish I could mod, but I'm strictly a console gamer. :-)

Thank you for your feedback!
I didnt want to change anything in Halo: C.E because I'm pretty sure if I suggested anything, people would find where I live, hang, draw and quarter me.

And yes of course campaign only balancing. Admittedly I'm not very good at Multiplayer games, at least VS stuff. Some games I find myself rather competent at like Battlefield 3 and to a lesser extent 4, but I'm terrible at Call of Duty. And honestly I prefer a story, which is why I never got into games like Rainbow Six Seige.

I'd like to see Campaign weapons primarily made fair for their campaigns, but so many people feel doing so would tarnish the classics. I can understand where they come from, even if I don't particularly agree. It seems if it possible to make it an optional choice in a menu, they'd be more up for it.

I wish I could mod, but I'm strictly a console gamer. :-)

Thank you for your feedback!
You're welcome. It's important, however, to keep in mind that from Halo 2 onwards, the damage output of a weapon in the hands of the player is the same in the hands of the AI, as the weapon properties are referenced from one directory itself in Halo 2 onwards. In Halo CE, the amount of damage a weapon did in the hands of the AI could be adjusted based on the actor variant tag, ie Grunt Minor Plasma Pistol, which determined what percent of damage the weapon did in the hands of the AI. In Halo 2 and onward, Actor Variant tags no longer have these areas filled. These sections still exist in the tag, but they are left unused except for very special AI units, such as the Heretic Leader and the Prophet of Regret, who are specific individuals fought by the player.

In Halo CE, all weapons had their various immediate dependencies kept in the same directory as the weapons themselves... except for the Plasma Rifle and Plasma Pistol, as the Plasma Rifle has the overcharge bolt tags in its directory because the properties of the two weapons were swapped right at the last minute. But otherwise, all of the immediate tags for weapons are located in their respective weapon directory. The impact damage tag for the Assault Rifle's bullets are in the same directory as the Assault Rifle itself, etc...

Personally, I think people tend to overreact about this kind of thing. I believe that nostalgia clouds their view sometimes, such as when I suggest Halo 2 having its campaign tweaked so that Legendary is no longer unfair and sadistic, they tend to respond that being this way was what made Halo 2 unique. This is utter nonsense, as fans reacted positively when 343 tweaked the Legendary difficulty for Halo 5 after it was released because of people complaining about how hard it was when it was initially shipped. Cognitive dissonance or something, I suppose.

So, as I was saying earlier... when adjusting weapon values, keep in mind that you will also have to have the values of the AI adjusted as well to compensate. After all, if the player and the Flood both use a shotgun with the same values... you get my meaning. I also agree that Pistols in general got shafted in Halo 2 onward. The Plasma Pistol and the Magnum both became shadows of their former selves, and while the SMG is basically the H1 Assault Rifle in a smaller body with weaker bullets... yeah, every Halo game onward made their weapons weaker than CE... except Halo 3 ODST's sniper rifle, which is actually more powerful than any other Sniper Rifle in the franchise.

Still, I enjoyed reading your ideas, and if you ever decide to check out the Halo series on PC, especially Combat Evolved and Custom Edition, I think you might be able to make some interesting mods, or at least contribute some nice ideas to the modding community when Mod support becomes available for MCC PC Edition some time down the road.

Also, yes, the statistics gathered by generalkidd are accurate. I can verify this... but we're not allowed to discuss modded content and modding tools for Halo 2 onward. Only Halo CE modding is allowed to be discussed on these forums... for now, at least. Just take my word for it.
Now i have tiem to answer the idea to the weapons individually
1. Magnum : The Magnum is fine where it is . its the only dual wieldable weapon that can headshot one hit making it very efficent with plasma combos much more then the Br . when fighting against grunts and similar it can kills groups faster then the br unless they are so close together taht one can hit multipe with a br salvo. it is a sidearm in the true sense thats why the low damage in ok in this case as the sandbox offers other tools for that. The only thing i would change is the avaviability aka placing more magnums and magnum ammo troughout the campaign since thats basicly its biggest weakness
2. Shotgun : i agree with you on the range... the halo ce shotgun felt more "realistic" in that sense though you can still hit with some of the pelets at range in Halo 2 just not so effective as in CE. Also in the Sandbox the shotgun must still have significant enough range disadvantage against the SMG (the smg kinda being the Halo 2 AR) to not devalue it too much. in my opinion the best shotgun range wise was probably reach or 4 since you atleast didnt need to go up to the face
3. SMG . In my opinion the change i would make is that similar to halo 3 AR vs SMG vs BR in halo 3 that the smg outdamages the br in close range since bouth in mp and singleplayer of halo 2 the br simply outclasses the smg . in halo 3 in mp for example the asssaultrifle was on close range often an better choice then the br ( of course only with correct aim , movement and strafing skills ) since it could slightly kill faster then the br ( and smg even more faster and shotgun instant thats kinda the sandbox in the different "ideal" engagement ranges an smg would louse against an AR in a more ranged fight etc ) so absicly i agree with you though ammo is not nessesary sincethe smg is plenty avaviable ( massive amounts on earth , flood levels ,and often via supply on delta levels )
4. BR i would decreace the firerate to similiar level of halo 3 to make rest of sandbox more viable ammo isnt really a problem. logically the carbine rof must be changed aswell
5. plasma rifle .... nah not nessesary since dual wield and carbine compensate for that
6. plasma pistol ... it dosent have ion halo 2 powerdrain you just forgot. i wouldnt fiddle around at the damage department but would nerf the op tracking of overcharchge to a level where you acctauly needed some skill to aim
h3/odst
m6g magnum .... only with decreased damage i would up the rof ... this change would make it competetive against the br against weaker enemies. i was fine with the halo 2 magnum
odst magnum....... no changes nessesary max more ammo i explain why
assault rifle : i woudl cahgne either magaziine size or damage a brute needs almsot an entier mag or more then a m ag to kill wich causes in my taste to often reloads and against weaker enmies like grunts the same problem ... this could be countered by faster reload or something too. i would want it to feel like the halo ce Ar aka an weapon that can blast away a group of grunts/ jackals weaker flood without even reloading. 1/4 of the mag should be left after killing your average brute / elite and the smg because its dualwield etc nature cant do that the same like ce
supressed smg ..... make ammo and guns WAY more avaviable since this gun together with the pistol kinda replaced the BR these guns kinda need to work together ... one is meaningless without the other as the smg because of lack in dual wield and smaller mag is basicly outperformed by the Ar and the pistol itself is useless against any type of shields. the bigger thing would be in ODST the Carbine since using an carbine still leaves you open for one additional gun. the Carbine basicly needs to be nerfed to the point that it becomes a real choice.

( when writign this i was thinking of the game on heroic difficulty )
Personally, I think people tend to overreact about this kind of thing. I believe that nostalgia clouds their view sometimes, such as when I suggest Halo 2 having its campaign tweaked so that Legendary is no longer unfair and sadistic, they tend to respond that being this way was what made Halo 2 unique. This is utter nonsense, as fans reacted positively when 343 tweaked the Legendary difficulty for Halo 5 after it was released because of people complaining about how hard it was when it was initially shipped. Cognitive dissonance or something, I suppose.
I personally find Halo 2 legendary to be atrocious. In fact, in terms of gameplay, I find the Halo 2 campaign in general to be the worst of the Bungie games, due to all sorts of things, such as weapon balance, the amount of health a player has vs the amount that enemies have (particularly when it comes to vehicles), the degree of accuracy that enemies have and the speed at which they react, the game's pacing, and even level and encounter design. And don't even ask me about the boss fights.

And yet, despite all of that, I find it important that all of these horrible things be left intact. Optional changes to any of the games are fine. In fact they've already done that by adding skulls that were not present in the original titles, which is something I support. But in my opinion there should be no permanent changes to these titles. While I love the idea of replaying them in new ways that weren't possible before, there are other times where I just want to experience the games as they were originally, warts and all, like going back in time.

As for the changes made to Halo 5, I actually think that even in that case, they should have been optional. That being said, I think it's important to note that those changes were made by the original developers of the game, while the game was still being actively supported. That's different than changing a game made by other developers long enough ago that the game itself has become inseparable from its own legacy. Making changes to something like that without preserving the original game (however flawed it may be) alongside them would almost be like trying to change history.

So that's my view. Again, optional changes and tweaks, and even new additions, are fine. I even support them. But nothing permanent that replaces how the originals were.
jmandude15 wrote:
jmandude15 wrote:
Personally, I think people tend to overreact about this kind of thing. I believe that nostalgia clouds their view sometimes, such as when I suggest Halo 2 having its campaign tweaked so that Legendary is no longer unfair and sadistic, they tend to respond that being this way was what made Halo 2 unique. This is utter nonsense, as fans reacted positively when 343 tweaked the Legendary difficulty for Halo 5 after it was released because of people complaining about how hard it was when it was initially shipped. Cognitive dissonance or something, I suppose.
As for the changes made to Halo 5, I actually think that even in that case, they should have been optional. That being said, I think it's important to note that those changes were made by the original developers of the game, while the game was still being actively supported. That's different than changing a game made by other developers long enough ago that the game itself has become inseparable from its own legacy. Making changes to something like that without preserving the original game (however flawed it may be) alongside them would almost be like trying to change history.

So that's my view. Again, optional changes and tweaks, and even new additions, are fine. I even support them. But nothing permanent that replaces how the originals were.
And I agree with you to a degree. Somethings shouldn't be touched, like moives really, you don't need to touch a movie (franchise) to improve upon it.

What I wanted from this thread, was some tweeks we could all agree on that would make it fair. If by "making it fair" the option to have some weapons improved is a selectable option in a menu, then I guess I'm all for it. I don't want people to feel cheated. But as you said Halo 2 Legendary is unfair but again, sometimes that's the nostalgia of it.
Now i have tiem to answer the idea to the weapons individually
1. Magnum : The Magnum is fine where it is . its the only dual wieldable weapon that can headshot one hit making it very efficent with plasma combos much more then the Br . when fighting against grunts and similar it can kills groups faster then the br unless they are so close together taht one can hit multipe with a br salvo. it is a sidearm in the true sense thats why the low damage in ok in this case as the sandbox offers other tools for that. The only thing i would change is the avaviability aka placing more magnums and magnum ammo troughout the campaign since thats basicly its biggest weakness
2. Shotgun : i agree with you on the range... the halo ce shotgun felt more "realistic" in that sense though you can still hit with some of the pelets at range in Halo 2 just not so effective as in CE. Also in the Sandbox the shotgun must still have significant enough range disadvantage against the SMG (the smg kinda being the Halo 2 AR) to not devalue it too much. in my opinion the best shotgun range wise was probably reach or 4 since you atleast didnt need to go up to the face

( when writign this i was thinking of the game on heroic difficulty )
That is true, you are right with the "combo" that does make it relevant, but is it justified? Saying; "Oh X is good as long as you combo it with Y or have two of X."
Each weapon by itself singularly alone should make its own statement for being, in my mind of course, so perhaps a buff to its damage may not go too far amiss? However you are right on one thing I hadn't taken into account, the magnum is a pretty uncommon if not rare weapon in Halo 2 and usually you only find one. Which as stated in and of itself is a peashooter.

Maybe having more littered in UNSC heavy missions/maps would maybe be a good thing too.
jmandude15 wrote:
Personally, I think people tend to overreact about this kind of thing. I believe that nostalgia clouds their view sometimes, such as when I suggest Halo 2 having its campaign tweaked so that Legendary is no longer unfair and sadistic, they tend to respond that being this way was what made Halo 2 unique. This is utter nonsense, as fans reacted positively when 343 tweaked the Legendary difficulty for Halo 5 after it was released because of people complaining about how hard it was when it was initially shipped. Cognitive dissonance or something, I suppose.
I personally find Halo 2 legendary to be atrocious. In fact, in terms of gameplay, I find the Halo 2 campaign in general to be the worst of the Bungie games, due to all sorts of things, such as weapon balance, the amount of health a player has vs the amount that enemies have (particularly when it comes to vehicles), the degree of accuracy that enemies have and the speed at which they react, the game's pacing, and even level and encounter design. And don't even ask me about the boss fights.

And yet, despite all of that, I find it important that all of these horrible things be left intact. Optional changes to any of the games are fine. In fact they've already done that by adding skulls that were not present in the original titles, which is something I support. But in my opinion there should be no permanent changes to these titles. While I love the idea of replaying them in new ways that weren't possible before, there are other times where I just want to experience the games as they were originally, warts and all, like going back in time.

As for the changes made to Halo 5, I actually think that even in that case, they should have been optional. That being said, I think it's important to note that those changes were made by the original developers of the game, while the game was still being actively supported. That's different than changing a game made by other developers long enough ago that the game itself has become inseparable from its own legacy. Making changes to something like that without preserving the original game (however flawed it may be) alongside them would almost be like trying to change history.

So that's my view. Again, optional changes and tweaks, and even new additions, are fine. I even support them. But nothing permanent that replaces how the originals were.
Well, when Halo 2 comes to PC again via MCC-PC, I hope that rebalanced mods of the campaign will be made available alongside the original. You are right that the original work must remain intact, preserved, and not replaced, but that does not mean alternate variants cannot or even should not exist.
I love the idea of it all being interchangeable in a menu.
jmandude15 wrote:
Personally, I think people tend to overreact about this kind of thing. I believe that nostalgia clouds their view sometimes, such as when I suggest Halo 2 having its campaign tweaked so that Legendary is no longer unfair and sadistic, they tend to respond that being this way was what made Halo 2 unique. This is utter nonsense, as fans reacted positively when 343 tweaked the Legendary difficulty for Halo 5 after it was released because of people complaining about how hard it was when it was initially shipped. Cognitive dissonance or something, I suppose.
I personally find Halo 2 legendary to be atrocious. In fact, in terms of gameplay, I find the Halo 2 campaign in general to be the worst of the Bungie games, due to all sorts of things, such as weapon balance, the amount of health a player has vs the amount that enemies have (particularly when it comes to vehicles), the degree of accuracy that enemies have and the speed at which they react, the game's pacing, and even level and encounter design. And don't even ask me about the boss fights.

And yet, despite all of that, I find it important that all of these horrible things be left intact. Optional changes to any of the games are fine. In fact they've already done that by adding skulls that were not present in the original titles, which is something I support. But in my opinion there should be no permanent changes to these titles. While I love the idea of replaying them in new ways that weren't possible before, there are other times where I just want to experience the games as they were originally, warts and all, like going back in time.

As for the changes made to Halo 5, I actually think that even in that case, they should have been optional. That being said, I think it's important to note that those changes were made by the original developers of the game, while the game was still being actively supported. That's different than changing a game made by other developers long enough ago that the game itself has become inseparable from its own legacy. Making changes to something like that without preserving the original game (however flawed it may be) alongside them would almost be like trying to change history.

So that's my view. Again, optional changes and tweaks, and even new additions, are fine. I even support them. But nothing permanent that replaces how the originals were.
Well, when Halo 2 comes to PC again via MCC-PC, I hope that rebalanced mods of the campaign will be made available alongside the original. You are right that the original work must remain intact, preserved, and not replaced, but that does not mean alternate variants cannot or even should not exist.
I totally agree. I love mods. SPV3 for instance, is a radical reinterpretation of Halo CE, and it's great. It doesn't take the place of the original. It's just kind of its own thing.
I love the idea of it all being interchangeable in a menu.
Implementation would be the overriding issue, it would involve the changing numerical values of damage fire rates ect , which may be to advanced for a majority of users to understand and implement but if too basic it wouldn't serve the practical use of rebalancing and just be a gimmick.
I love the idea of it all being interchangeable in a menu.
Implementation would be the overriding issue, it would involve the changing numerical values of damage fire rates ect , which may be to advanced for a majority of users to understand and implement but if too basic it wouldn't serve the practical use of rebalancing and just be a gimmick.
Absolutely. While it is a wonderful idea, the technical implementation would be borderline impossible to pull off well. Still, it's a lovely idea.
jmandude15 wrote:
Well, when Halo 2 comes to PC again via MCC-PC, I hope that rebalanced mods of the campaign will be made available alongside the original. You are right that the original work must remain intact, preserved, and not replaced, but that does not mean alternate variants cannot or even should not exist.
So, what could you suggest be done, other than "mods"
I love the idea of it all being interchangeable in a menu.
Implementation would be the overriding issue, it would involve the changing numerical values of damage fire rates ect , which may be to advanced for a majority of users to understand and implement but if too basic it wouldn't serve the practical use of rebalancing and just be a gimmick.
Absolutely. While it is a wonderful idea, the technical implementation would be borderline impossible to pull off well. Still, it's a lovely idea.
So would you say it's impossible?
How about you find strategy around those weapons instead of having them change for your benefit? You either accept it or leave it, no inbetween.
How about you find strategy around those weapons instead of having them change for your benefit? You either accept it or leave it, no inbetween.
That is where you're mistaken. I do have strategy around them, I know how to use them and when, all I'm asking for is at least the slightest of tweaks.

For instance, the M6C in Halo 2 is practically useless, made bearable when dual-wielded. Is it too much to suggest that it could altered so a single pistol alone is a viable weapon as the SMG is?
How about you find strategy around those weapons instead of having them change for your benefit? You either accept it or leave it, no inbetween.
He's just talking about tweaks that he thinks would make the games more balanced, not just making the games easier. I'm not saying whether I agree with the changes he's proposing one way or another. I'm just saying that he thinks they would improve the game.

As I've said previously on this thread, I think weapon balance tweaks and other changes are fine, as long as they're optional and don't interfere with the base game.
How about you find strategy around those weapons instead of having them change for your benefit? You either accept it or leave it, no inbetween.
That is where you're mistaken. I do have strategy around them, I know how to use them and when, all I'm asking for is at least the slightest of tweaks.

For instance, the M6C in Halo 2 is practically useless, made bearable when dual-wielded. Is it too much to suggest that it could altered so a single pistol alone is a viable weapon as the SMG is?
No, it's not much to ask, the problem is the reception. Most of the community would burst in rage if they did this. Yes, it makes it more balanced, but it still makes it different from OG Halo 2. For example: in OG, you can't complete a section with dual-wielding Magnums, no matter what you do. Then you come to the remaster and have that same strategy work. See what I mean here?
It's best to leave the games as they are to avoid creating inconsistencies and, well, break the the purpose of a remaster.
jmandude15 wrote:
How about you find strategy around those weapons instead of having them change for your benefit? You either accept it or leave it, no inbetween.
He's just talking about tweaks that he thinks would make the games more balanced, not just making the games easier. I'm not saying whether I agree with the changes he's proposing one way or another. I'm just saying that he thinks they would improve the game.

As I've said previously on this thread, I think weapon balance tweaks and other changes are fine, as long as they're optional and don't interfere with the base game.
Maybe it could be something you could download from the Halo store then delete to your leisure? I don't know, I'm throwing out ideas at this point.
How about you find strategy around those weapons instead of having them change for your benefit? You either accept it or leave it, no inbetween.
That is where you're mistaken. I do have strategy around them, I know how to use them and when, all I'm asking for is at least the slightest of tweaks.

For instance, the M6C in Halo 2 is practically useless, made bearable when dual-wielded. Is it too much to suggest that it could altered so a single pistol alone is a viable weapon as the SMG is?
No, it's not much to ask, the problem is the reception. Most of the community would burst in rage if they did this. Yes, it makes it more balanced, but it still makes it different from OG Halo 2. For example: in OG, you can't complete a section with dual-wielding Magnums, no matter what you do. Then you come to the remaster and have that same strategy work. See what I mean here?
It's best to leave the games as they are to avoid creating inconsistencies and, well, break the the purpose of a remaster.
I understand what you mean since others have said as such previously. I just wish there was a way to do it and not step on anyones toes.
The damage boost on the Magnum is more likely to screw the player when fighting the Flood, one should go for the head which makes a damage boost useless.

Also the weapon is uncommon everywhere and missions tend to have areas a bit too large for the Magnum, almost forgot how power weapons are actually less rare past Cairo Station.

The killer is really it's rarity for me, it's not like you can't get closer to an enemy.
How about you find strategy around those weapons instead of having them change for your benefit? You either accept it or leave it, no inbetween.
That is where you're mistaken. I do have strategy around them, I know how to use them and when, all I'm asking for is at least the slightest of tweaks.

For instance, the M6C in Halo 2 is practically useless, made bearable when dual-wielded. Is it too much to suggest that it could altered so a single pistol alone is a viable weapon as the SMG is?
No, it's not much to ask, the problem is the reception. Most of the community would burst in rage if they did this. Yes, it makes it more balanced, but it still makes it different from OG Halo 2. For example: in OG, you can't complete a section with dual-wielding Magnums, no matter what you do. Then you come to the remaster and have that same strategy work. See what I mean here?
It's best to leave the games as they are to avoid creating inconsistencies and, well, break the the purpose of a remaster.
The changes don't have to replace the original balance. They can just be optional changes that you can enable or disable before starting a mission similar to the way you can switch between classic and remastered music for halo ce.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3