Halo 343i best thing to happen to halo or worst?

[ShockBolt21]

does Camo create a strategy or just reduce the amount of skill required to execute one?

Stealth doesn't work that well in Halo, as you can't really blend in, neither can you peer around corners or over ledges while staying relatively concealed, and there's a bigass arrow over your head when an enemy looks in your general direction. It may be a viable strategy for escaping detection on radar for a short distance/time, but active camouflage makes it possible to use throughout the game. Very few people play with stealthy tactics in the absence of camo, so diversity is still low in this case.

Would you like Halo 4 better if it had Armor Lock with 10x the use time? It's a new way to play the game.
Just trying to bring up the idea that variety can both be good and bad, depending on its implementation.

Diversity can be a bad thing, as it is in your example. But in the case of armor abilities, it isn't.

Given that competitive = fair, balanced, and no unnecessary RNG, you prefer personalization to competitiveness?

Yes, I actually do. Take Halo 3, for example.

The reason people say that Halo 3 is the most polished and balanced Halo game is because there really isn't much to it. Everybody's thrown into the arena with a battle rifle and nothing else. Of course that's gonna be balanced, because it's so simple. But I don't think it's any fun. Gameplay is repetitive- due to the lack of variety and your lack of extra equipment, the only way you can really play the game is just to run and gun. Over and over and over. There are slightly different approaches you can take, such as camping a power position. But when you actually encounter a bad guy, the battle will be the same every time- both players just blast each other until somebody drops dead or ducks behind cover.

Also, what do you say to the autosentry, AA regeneration, and AAs on map questions I brought up? Do you think AAs not regenerating or AAs being on the map would make the game more balanced / fun?

As I said before, it would improve the game's balance, but I think it would ruin the point of armor abilities. They're supposed to be like a versatile gadget that you always have on you, or like a tool that you always depend on and becomes an integral part of your strategy, as you can use it whenever you need to. This can really only be achieved if you choose it from a selection of others, and have it on you the entire game. I think that 343 did a great job with their incorporation of abilities into the game, and I'm glad to have it this way.

 

[RegrettedKarma6]

Halo is at its core, an arena shooter. Armour abilities break that entirely. In my opinion they are complete bs in the state they currently are. Equal footing should be prioritised in my mind, not circumstantial advantages that you can't do anything about.

 

[theSpinCycle]

Stealth doesn't work that well in Halo, as you can't really blend in, neither can you peer around corners or over ledges while staying relatively concealed, and there's a bigass arrow over your head when an enemy looks in your general direction. It may be a viable strategy for escaping detection on radar for a short distance/time, but active camouflage makes it possible to use throughout the game. Very few people play with stealthy tactics in the absence of camo, so diversity is still low in this case.

By stealth I didn't mean running around and being seen I meant going around back routes where there aren't any opponents, going for assassinations, etc. And of course, there's a whole debate of Camo as an Armor Ability versus Camo as a powerup.

Yes, I actually do.

Fair enough. It is an opinion.

As I said before, it would improve the game's balance, but I think it would ruin the point of armor abilities.

Isn't what sells games their balance?

They're supposed to be like a versatile gadget that you always have on you, or like a tool that you always depend on and becomes an integral part of your strategy, as you can use it whenever you need to.

This is a strange statement. The point of the armor ability is to be an armor ability? Using that argument it would be possible to justify anything. For instance, to go back to the armor lock example: Removing / modifying the 10x Armor Lock would improve the game's balance but defeat the point of the 10x Armor Lock. It's supposed to be a versatile gadget you can have on you at all times to tactically delay enemies.

There is also the business-oriented argument RegrettedKarma brought up - that most of the Halo consumer base wants (or at least wanted.. before the population of the game tumbled) an arena shooter. It's somewhat akin to selling white soap for eight years, growing a consistent consumer base that loves white soap, and suddenly stopping the production of white soap in favor of green soap. Green soap might have its benefits, but your consumers want the product they're used to.

Such is the fate of Halo, I guess. When the games are so different from one another, it's impossible to appease all or even most of your customers.

 

[ShockBolt21]

Isn't what sells games their balance?

No! Halo is the only shooter game that's like this. Halo is the only game that cares so much about balance as to strip players of anything that doesn't keep the game perfectly flat and homogeneous. Look at any other game and you'll see that they aren't solely worried about keeping everything even. What would Call of Duty be without it's perks, gadgets, and weapon customization? What would Battlefield be without vehicles, gadgets, kit specific equipment and weapons? They would indeed be balanced because everyone would have the same stuff (barely anything), but what fun would it be? Players would all be forced to play the same way, and it would be extremely repetitive. Almost every game (except Halo) has plenty of random/varied elements that keep it interesting at the expense of some balance, but they're still very successful games.

Only the Halo community would complain about the things 343 added that differentiate players from each other and slightly reduce balance. There is nothing wrong with that- this isn't chess we're talking about.

 

[RegrettedKarma6]

Those are really bad comparisons.

What would Battlefield be without vehicles, gadgets, kit specific equipment and weapons? .

This is what's wrong with your reasoning. It's like asking what Halo would be without on map power weapons and shields. That wouldn't make any sense. Battlefield has always had those more personalised features while Halo hasn't. Battlefield was built off that, Halo wasn't. Arena shooters have copped it over the last few years and I for one am not willing to see one of the last ones compromised just so that it can become more like other games. If Halo was built off personalised features AA's would fit, but its not. They just don't fit the sandbox.

I for one much prefer being good at something competitive (you can't just call something competitive flat), then getting lucky when people's abilities don't match up to yours in a situation. Opinions are opinions though, it's fine for you to enjoy the more personalised experience, it's just that the problem lies within alienating loyals who all enjoy playing the same way to see who can outplay the other within the same playing boundaries.