Halo Do Loadouts belong in Halo?

[FREEDOM COBRA]

Simple question. Personally, I think we should be aloud to choose our weapon to fit our play style and add variety to the combat scenarios that make Halo great. That being said, grenades need some form of tuning as in Reach I rarely saw anyone take the time to go out of their way for a nade(the same was in 3 but with the better choices of grenade it occurred more frequently, plus H3 had less long range combat that hurt grenades in Reach) and currently are one of Halo 4's(few) short comings is the at-spawn plasma grenades that hurt vehicular gameplay. Tactical Packages and Armor Mods seem well balanced and I don't know of one that is overused or exploited in anyway so I've no beef with them. Armor Abilities are an important part of loadouts and I love them, that being said the non-Jetpack AAs need a buff but I think they serve their purpose as a part of our loadouts.

 

[Tomtris]

No, that made the gameplay different (for the worse) and less even. When everyone in the game starts off with 1 BR, 1 Magnum, and 1 Frag, whomever is best at the game usually wins. The sandbox is even, and with everyone starting out with the same everything, there is less variable. And if everything isn't balanced (which it wasn't for the longest time, and still isn't across the sandbox) then cheap kills ensue with guns that are Upgades and downgrades, versus what should be sidegrades.

If everything was even (which I might add is vitrually impossible, then maybe I would be more keen to accepting it).

Side note: Armor Abilities ruined halo.

 

[a ninja samuri]

I think there should be normal halo like in H3 but with a certain game type for loadouts

 

[Zandril]

I prefer it like Halo 3. Fighting for the weapons you want. Not having them at start-up.

 

[ShockBolt21]

I think they can find a way to make them work. And tomtris, what is halo without armor abilities? They do nothing but enhance the gameplay and make it more enjoyable.

 

[RogerDodger]

I voted "Yes, but with less options". It seems like H4 still has problems with weapon balancing because there were too many variables to control. By cutting down on trivial components of Loadouts, they'll be able to find an easier time in fixing their other issues.

Think about SWAT. You can either choose the BR for closer engagements, DMR long, and Magnum for short but quicker firepower. Slayer Pro has a variety of primary weapons, just without Armor Abilities and the other odd appendages. These tend to form concrete play styles, true. But after a while one could be craving for a different experience. This is where Infinity Slayer came in, and permitted the variation of weaponry.

The Title Update was to fix discrepancies between the relative strengths of primary weapons. I believe that it did so pretty well to some degree, albeit pushing the LR and Supp to niche roles rather than having a use in the everyday play of maps. Two of the seven weapons at each extent of range category is fair, since they can be supplemented with a good secondary (BS for LR, Mag for Supp). Even grenades could be suited for different combat scenarios, although these still need to be amended. Most Tactical and Support packages don't offer much in the way of assistance, either.

What I'm getting at here is, even though all the weapons seem to be in check, people complain about the environment around it. Most weapon problems are created because developers don't take to heart these concepts in their maps, or other related compartments of the game itself. This is what I'd do to Loadouts in the next game.

• Remove the point system. All the options should be up-front.
• (Ties into the above, but) remove Specializations for level-ups.
• Primary Weapons - Let them choose
• Secondary - Ditto
• Grenades - Ditto, except vehicles clearly need a damage resistance buff, and the Pulse should be much better.
• AAs - Remove Jetpack. It's depressing that we needed to deal with this Ability for so long, when its function contradicts good map design.
• Tactical Package - Remove and replace with Resupply. We shouldn't need a perk to pick grenades up off the ground. Firepower and Grenadier were really unbalanced, and the remainder were rather useless.
• Support Package - I guess you could rename this to "Specialization". This would be the one unique trait that a Spartan has, the "wild card" of the show. In their current state, a few would need some hefty buffs (pretty sure the Engineer and Stalker one would need some help). Others should be considered for nerf or removal (Dexterity isn't even situational, and Ammo just allows for complete havoc with Initial Ordinance).

 

[GrmnEscaltrPrty]

Many questions over all halo games up to reach have probably had that one guy who asks the question why dont Spartans just being their won weapons to combat, rather than the UNSC providing fixed weapon choices for them? Halo 4 answered that question and some others but for the sake of this topic i won't go into detail with any other of the other questions that were answered. More or less the loadouts belong in halo for the sake of answering some of the questions related to real life although halo may not be what the military of today is, they still get to choose their weapons, grenades, etc. Why doesn't the UNSC i wonder? Ever ask that question because 4 and reach answered it, 4 elaborated on the idea. Just because there are less vehicle havoc because of A) the plasma grenades B) the plasma pistol and C) the explosives mod doesn't set the standard for all of us to not use those Loadout options. It just says they're available to you and you don't have to necessarily use them. Loadouts are there for those people who had issues finding and utilizing theyre play style efficiently because they wanted different starter guns. I chose "Yes" in the pole because it answered some questions for me and it shook some doubt and overall improved my gameplay as an individual and a team player. So i am all for loadouts in halo.

 

[ShockBolt21]

...that being said the non-Jetpack AAs need a buff

• AAs - Remove Jetpack. It's depressing that we needed to deal with this Ability for so long, when its function contradicts good map design.

Are you joking me? All the jetpack really does is allow players to reach higher areas and increase their overall mobility. When they do that, they expose themselves to fire from all over the battlefield, so it's pretty well balanced. Even if they did reach an elevated location, sure they have a nicer view over the battlefield, but the battlefield also has a nice view on him, meaning that everyone can see him and shoot him.

Also, I think that people need to rethink their definition of "overpowered." If a perk or ability gives you ad advantage on the battlefield, that doesn't mean that it's unbalanced or OP. That's exactly what it's supposed to do. I mean, sure the jet pack, firepower, grenadier, and ammo give you a situational advantage, but does that really mean that they're unbalanced and overpowered?

No, that made the gameplay different (for the worse) and less even. When everyone in the game starts off with 1 BR, 1 Magnum, and 1 Frag, whomever is best at the game usually wins. The sandbox is even, and with everyone starting out with the same everything, there is less variable.

If everything was even (which I might add is vitrually impossible, then maybe I would be more keen to accepting it).

Side note: Armor Abilities ruined halo.

True, in that case, whoever is the best usually wins. But what about the less skilled players? It would really be no fun if the same people are winning over and over while the weaker players lose every single fight and can't manage a single victory.

I think everyone has the right to play their own way and use their own tactics. Because players will be using strategies they are comfortable with, the more skilled players are still at an advantage, but everyone has a shot at victory. Loadouts and armor abilities are an important part of this.

For example, if you check out my gameplay here, you'll notice that my tactics are extremely different from anyone else's, and that's why I can do well in the game. I'm not as skilled with the battle rifle as everyone else, so if I was thrown into a free-for-all with 1 BR, 1 Magnum, and 1 Frag, I would never win. But because I'm not forced into this loadout and I can play my own way, I can achieve extremely high ratios and kick some serious ass.

 

[RogerDodger]

Are you joking me? All the jetpack really does is allow players to reach higher areas and increase their overall mobility. When they do that, they expose themselves to fire from all over the battlefield, so it's pretty well balanced. Even if they did reach an elevated location, sure they have a nicer view over the battlefield, but the battlefield also has a nice view on him, meaning that everyone can see him and shoot him.

Not every map is tailored to punishing JP users in terms of usage, or risk. Nor should they have to succumb to that. For this block of quote let's talk about how JP modifies movement. A prime example of this is/was Solace. Imagine a scenario in Oddball, where a team holding the ball has backed up into one of the bases. We can assume by spawn placement that holding teams spawns inside, retrieving team is outside. From the defender's perspective, they are worried about people coming around the sides, because the top sniper nests are inaccessible through jumping. But wait! There comes the Jetpack attacker, flying through the sniper nest and infiltrating the enemy base. Did they really risk anything to get to that point? Nope, because everyone was inside the base. Was there an advantage to be had? Of course.

Also, I think that people need to rethink their definition of "overpowered." If a perk or ability gives you ad advantage on the battlefield, that doesn't mean that it's unbalanced or OP. That's exactly what it's supposed to do. I mean, sure the jet pack, firepower, grenadier, and ammo give you a situational advantage, but does that really mean that they're unbalanced and overpowered?

Unbalanced is has a much better connotation then overpowered, so I'll use that. You say that you get a situational advantage - to what end? And what degree of advantage? If there are more situations or a higher advantage for a particular option, then it's unbalanced relative to another option. It's all about opportunity cost, and whatever option has the lower opportunity cost is generally regarded as the better option. The goal of balancing is to reduce this opportunity cost to solely preference and play style.

 

[Tomtris]

True, in that case, whoever is the best usually wins. But what about the less skilled players? It would really be no fun if the same people are winning over and over while the weaker players lose every single fight and can't manage a single victory.

You want games to not be based of skill? You want cheap kills, and cheap wins? The Trueskill weeds out the good and the bad, and the wins should be based off of who is the most skilled. When you take away that, and the less skilled can win against pros... well that's when MLG drops your sponsorship.

 

[VaultingFrog]

I wont touch this beyond saying: Yes, yes they do belong.

 

[ShockBolt21]

Not every map is tailored to punishing JP users in terms of usage, or risk. Nor should they have to succumb to that. For this block of quote let's talk about how JP modifies movement. A prime example of this is/was Solace. Imagine a scenario in Oddball, where a team holding the ball has backed up into one of the bases. We can assume by spawn placement that holding teams spawns inside, retrieving team is outside. From the defender's perspective, they are worried about people coming around the sides, because the top sniper nests are inaccessible through jumping. But wait! There comes the Jetpack attacker, flying through the sniper nest and infiltrating the enemy base.

Yeah, that's just a guy using his ability to get an advantage on the enemy. Is it a huge, unfair advantage that completely tilts the balance of the game? I don't think it is. The point of an arbor ability, or any upgrade in general, is to give the player an advantage, and it becomes unbalanced if the advantage is too large. Personally, I don't think that the jetpack gives that large of an advantage, which is why I don't see it as unfair. If you do, I can understand your point, and I can't necessarily prove you're wrong.

 

[RogerDodger]

Personally, I don't think that the jetpack gives that large of an advantage, which is why I don't see it as unfair. If you do, I can understand your point, and I can't necessarily prove you're wrong.

Let's agree to disagree

 

[Skyward Shoe]

I love the ability to have custom load outs. It leads to a lot of variety in matches and lets you play the way you want to. That said, I think they need some changes to balance them out with the rest of the sandbox.

Primaries: Unchanged
Secondaries: Magnum only (unless using Firepower Perk)
Grenades: Frag only, always.
Armor abilities: Camo Removed.
Tactical Packages: Resupply removed but added as a basic feature for everyone. Players can inherently pick up dropped grenades from others like before.
Support Upgrades: Unchanged

Plasma Pistols, Boltshots, Plasma Grenades, and Pulse Grenades, and Active Camoflauge are on map as pickup weapons/ equipment. There already are some grenades on most maps so this isn't a big problem. I don't really have a big issue with jetpack, half the time it seems like it hurts the users more that it helps them by making them a target. Plus it got a huge nerf in Halo 4. If people want to use it I'll keep making sure they don't get back to the ground alive.

 

[ShockBolt21]

I don't really have a big issue with jetpack, half the time it seems like it hurts the users more that it helps them by making them a target. Plus it got a huge nerf in Halo 4. If people want to use it I'll keep making sure they don't get back to the ground alive.

Yes, exactly. Well said!

Anyway, I'm glad we have a choice of secondary weapons, grenades, and packages. Provides more choice for players and adds diversity to the battlefield.

 

[ShockBolt21]

You want games to not be based of skill? You want cheap kills, and cheap wins? The Trueskill weeds out the good and the bad, and the wins should be based off of who is the most skilled. When you take away that, and the less skilled can win against pros... well that's when MLG drops your sponsorship.

Do you see any other video game like this, where everyone starts off with the exact same thing every single time? Sounds pretty boring to me, especially if I don't even get to choose what it is that I use over and over. Skill is still an important part of the game, but it shouldn't be the only factor that comes into play. Wins should not only be based off of who can get the most hits and headshots with their Battle Rifle. What about tactics and strategy? It's great that players can choose their weapons and equipment to suit their tactics. This could become a problem if some were notably more powerful than others, but as long as they can keep it balanced, loadouts enhance the gameplay for the better.

BTW I don't see how loadouts make for cheap kills. Is a covenant carbine or suppressor kill any more cheap than a battle rifle kill?

 

[Skyward Shoe]

Yes, exactly. Well said!

Anyway, I'm glad we have a choice of secondary weapons, grenades, and packages. Provides more choice for players and adds diversity to the battlefield.

The issue I have with choosing a secondary (except firepower) and a grenade is that 1. The plasma pistol/ plasma nade combo has been killing BTB since Halo 4 came out, and 2. the boltshot, being able to 1 hit kill you with a charged shot, really makes more sense as a pickup weapon at your base.

As for skilled versus unskilled games, I think it all comes down to whether things are balanced at all angles. Having a choice of weapons and abilities doesn't make it less competitive so long as all of them make sense in the sandbox. I think the version I laid out would remove what issues personal load outs have now. The other thing that definitely removes skill and strategy from the game is personal ordnance, as players no longer need to worry much about fighting over power weapons on the map or on controlling areas. That is a feature that does not belong in a skill based mode, but in a more casual-fun based mode.

Basically, accessibility and skill based gameplay can't fully integrate in one game mode. As accessibility goes up, the benefit of being skilled goes down, and the most frustrating thing in the world is to lose to someone based on a factor you couldn't control, like them getting a rocket launcher in their ordnance or spawning with a plasma pistol on a vehicle filled map. When they can spawn with or drop in a weapon like these the strategy of competing for these weapons goes away entirely. Sure, the less skilled player has a better time, but it's not exactly fair to the players who have put in the time to become good at the game, and it doesn't promote people working to get better. In the end, it's best just to have an equal number of modes for each playlist: 1 mode for skill based games and 1 mode for accessibility and less skill based games.

 

[ShockBolt21]

The issue I have with choosing a secondary (except firepower) and a grenade is that 1. The plasma pistol/ plasma nade combo has been killing BTB since Halo 4 came out, and 2. the boltshot, being able to 1 hit kill you with a charged shot, really makes more sense as a pickup weapon at your base.

True. I think that this can be balanced out with a few more tweaks to the weapons, though, so the other secondaries can still be available at spawn. Either version could work- this is just my preference.

As for skilled versus unskilled games, I think it all comes down to whether things are balanced at all angles. Having a choice of weapons and abilities doesn't make it less competitive so long as all of them make sense in the sandbox. I think the version I laid out would remove what issues personal load outs have now. The other thing that definitely removes skill and strategy from the game is personal ordnance, as players no longer need to worry much about fighting over power weapons on the map or on controlling areas. That is a feature that does not belong in a skill based mode, but in a more casual-fun based mode.

Ordinance does remove strategy, but if you think about it, it does take skill to get the points you need to get the ordinance. But there is the option to turn it off or modify it however you like in custom game modes, and for every infinity game mode in matchmaking, there is a non-infinity equivalent, so you have a chance to play the game either way. I think ordinance hurts 1v1 the most, but for every other gametype I don't mind it too much, and I think it fits in all right. But that's a different argument.

Basically, accessibility and skill based gameplay can't fully integrate in one game mode. As accessibility goes up, the benefit of being skilled goes down, and the most frustrating thing in the world is to lose to someone based on a factor you couldn't control, like them getting a rocket launcher in their ordnance or spawning with a plasma pistol on a vehicle filled map. When they can spawn with or drop in a weapon like these the strategy of competing for these weapons goes away entirely. Sure, the less skilled player has a better time, but it's not exactly fair to the players who have put in the time to become good at the game, and it doesn't promote people working to get better. In the end, it's best just to have an equal number of modes for each playlist: 1 mode for skill based games and 1 mode for accessibility and less skill based games.

Skill will always be a part of halo- more skilled players will always have a significant advantage over the less skilled, and that's not a bad thing. But if skill becomes the only factor, to the point where you can predict, based on skill, the outcome of any game with a high certainty- that would just be boring and repetitive. Players should always have a chance to beat someone who is a little bit better than them. I'm not saying that everything should be based off of luck, but... come on. Hopefully you at least understand what I'm saying, because I feel like I'm running a pretty solid point here.

But yeah, two separate gametypes is a good idea.

 

[Skyward Shoe]

My issues with Halo 4 are when strategy and teamwork are no longer being rewarded. Ordnance is an issue for strategy because of the concept of risk vs reward. Basically, when weapons spawn on map, it is always a risk to go get them, especially better ones like rockets that are usually in a dangerous position. You have to risk moving to a new place and going into a bad position to get the reward of a weapon that can allow you to get more kills more easily. Personal ordnance rewards you for getting kills with the ability to get more kills. You no longer have to risk anything to get power weapons, and so you are rewarded for winning a few fights with a weapon that will increase the likelihood of winning the next fight. This is bad for good and mediocre players. Good players will likely get more weapons than they would have normally, making them win without having to risk anything. Average or lesser players will eventually get a free power weapon and then get a kill or two with it before being driven into the ground.

Neither system really helps out the less skilled player, but the new system frustrates the strong player because using these weapons this way feels cheap, and there is no way to deny the other team getting power weapons.

Also, the reason I'd prefer secondaries not to be the way they are now also stems from the fact that BTB maps used to have plasma pistols on them to find, fight over, and use against vehicles. This system allowed some to be in the map but limited them, just like camo being on the map did in previous halo games. I love the plasma pistol when used this way, as it promotes player movement and it helps balance out the vehicles, but when everyone can have on and death does not make them lose it the strategy disappears and the game devolves into a team all spawning with one until the other team has lost their vehicles. I miss designing BTB maps around plasma pistol locations, it really was a great system in Reach.

Ways to kill a vehicle in Halo: Reach:

• Team shoot it until it is dead or very damaged.
• Find a power weapon on the map, or a plasma pistol or plasma grenades to damage or halt it.
• Be a sneaky ninja and hijack or board it.

Ways to kill a vehicle in Halo 4:

• Plamsa pistol it and either board it or stick it to death with your team.
• Team shoot it if it's a banshee.
• Drop in your team's often unused personal ordnance and kill it with a sudden onslaught of power weapons that the other team had no control over.

 

[theSpinCycle]

Agreed with flying shoe on POD. They deserve to be trashed along with perks.

AAs can stay as long as you can tell what AA a person has when they pick it up and the AAs don't recharge (ahem, jetpack / PV / camo are stupid OP).

Also, get the boltshot and PP out of loadouts. Give the boltshot back its original range so that it's worth something as a pickup.

As for loadouts: meh. Again, it's very hard to tell who has what and when. Give everybody a set weapon or two off spawn and let people pick up the rest of the weapons on the map. My preference for a single loadout in this game is the pre-TU LR with 110% damage and 110% resistance; from past games, I would pick a 4sk ZB DMR, or of course CE's Pistol.