All I thought a Halo sequel ever needed...

Games Halo 5: Guardians
#1

…was a new story for campaign, and new maps and new guns and new gametypes for matchmaking. Never needed much more than that to be a success and to even remain innovative for me.

When it comes to matchmaking, us “classic” fans, are just a little too beholden to things like equipment and guns (particularly the BR) I believe. I think these are areas where we might benefit from letting go and perhaps not harping on them, because they seem like features that should be specific to a particular game for my taste.

While the guns of 2 & 3 were great, that’s one change, even as a classic fan, that I actually welcome because I enjoy adjusting to a new challenge - keeps things fresh. I can handle that change, and I think, for the most part, if the guns are good and balanced most others will adjust as well.

I think the ‘core’ of Halo, Halo’s ‘heart’, which is often discussed, is perhaps more general as it relates to matchmaking, and less the minute specifics that die-hard-die-hards know about. I think it’s just about attainting a sense of fairness in the fight and fostering a truly competitive community (where casuals have social playlists to play round in while others have ranked). You can have balance with almost anything so long as it’s implemented well - we only have 2 & 3 to go by, and we look back on those days as perfect (and I’m not saying they weren’t) I’m just saying that we, and 343, shouldn’t get so focused on one particular form of balance that we don’t explore new ones.

I think doing away with ranked competitive play is the biggest blow to Halo’s truest self, and her fans. I think the general atmosphere of ranked and social playlistis is the heart of Halo and so long as that sees a return in the rumored Anniversary and/or Halo 5, people’s happiness with the game (regardless of their inevitable issues) will increase greatly.

Heck I can even adjust to loadouts and armor abilities - as much as I might not like them and feel they’re not Halo - but if you give me a visible rank and challenging opponents, I’ll play. I’d still be trying to rank up/maintain my rank in 4 if there was a competitive playlist with a true-skill visible 50 to aspire to, regardless of whatever issues I have with certain abilities.

I’m not trying to argue with anyone about anything, just suggest that what we need more than anything, more than specific guns or maps etc, are the playlists we love.

Curious to know what others think - I know there are people who think Halo 4 is just a broken mess and have stopped playing because it’s not balanced. But I’d like to know if there are others who would probably still play it if ranked simply existed - if that’s what they care about above all else.

Thanks for reading. And I hope 343 gets the general idea that, regardless of specifics, for the most part we just want a truly competitive, skill-based atmosphere to return (at least that’s what I’ve gathered for the most part from these boards and online).

#2

Ranks to me were just a factor that contributed to Halo’s multiplayer.

I played Halos multiplayer for 5 keys reasons;

  • It was always Balanced.
  • It was always fair to new and old players.
  • It always had a learning curve and a Skill Gap.
  • It was always addicting.
  • And it was always fun.

Having a Ranking system helped these features, But it wasn’t the only one to do so. Not by a long shot.

These are the same reasons I, As well as 12 Million other unique players, Still play TF2 on a daily basis. And TF2 doesn’t even have Ranks.

So, In short, If Halo 4 was Balanced, Fair, Skillful, Addicting and Fun, Then I would of played it more. The same for Reach.

Can Ranks help with this? Absolutely. But there are other ways of making a game like Halo achieve these goals without the use of Ranks.

#3

> Ranks to me were just a factor that contributed to Halo’s multiplayer.
>
> I played Halos multiplayer for 5 keys reasons;
>
> - It was always Balanced.
> - It was always fair to new and old players.
> - It always had a learning curve and a Skill Gap.
> - It was always addicting.
> - And it was always fun.
>
> Having a Ranking system helped these features, But it wasn’t the only one to do so. Not by a long shot.
>
> These are the same reasons I, As well as 12 Million other unique players, Still play TF2 on a daily basis. And TF2 doesn’t even have Ranks.
>
> So, In short, If Halo 4 was Balanced, Fair, Skillful, Addicting and Fun, Then I would of played it more. The same for Reach.
>
> Can Ranks help with this? Absolutely. But there are other ways of making a game like Halo achieve these goals without the use of Ranks.

I understand. And agree.

I think this is just something that separates certain people - it’s as though there are sects within sects of the community. For me, for example, ranked is of the utmost importance (if the game is playable in any capacity). Like I could easily find fun in Halo 4, and did for a long time, but the lack of competitive play is what alienated me. For others, perhaps considered “more classic” or “diehard” the list of alienating things is longer. So I guess this makes me a “casual diehard Halo fan”?

#4

What do you mean if it was all those things? It is and was all those things. Everybody had access to the same weapons, no weapon is particularly overpowered, just good at what they’re supposed to do. Even when the dmr needed the nerf, it was balanced because everyone could use it. Personal Ordinance, and anti vehicle options in loadouts are where that line is blurred, but it is still very much a good game. Ranked competitive gameplay wasn’t done away with, but its implementations was really bad. It took way too long for CSR and Throwdown to even respond as poorly as they did to that need. Reach also had the Arena playlist which was supposed to provide for competitive ranking. The competitive community is really a minority as a market. Reach was able to maintain about 200k daily because it could keep more casual players playing even with changes.

I think what really let this game down was its launch date. This game needs time to become a habbit for players and if Call of Duty is launching the same month, it won’t happen and players will shift their.

Im not trying to discredit complaints about competitive gameplay and replay value, but in all honestly people would have played this game more if it launched in September and not November.

#5

> What do you mean if it was all those things? It is and was all those things. Everybody had access to the same weapons, no weapon is particularly overpowered, just good at what they’re supposed to do. Even when the dmr needed the nerf, it was balanced because everyone could use it. Personal Ordinance, and anti vehicle options in loadouts are where that line is blurred, but it is still very much a good game. Ranked competitive gameplay wasn’t done away with, but its implementations was really bad. It took way too long for CSR and Throwdown to even respond as poorly as they did to that need. Reach also had the Arena playlist which was supposed to provide for competitive ranking. The competitive community is really a minority as a market. Reach was able to maintain about 200k daily because it could keep more casual players playing even with changes.
>
> I think what really let this game down was its launch date. This game needs time to become a habbit for players and if Call of Duty is launching the same month, it won’t happen and players will shift their.
>
> Im not trying to discredit complaints about competitive gameplay and replay value, but in all honestly people would have played this game more if it launched in September and not November.

EDIT: Nvm, I just saw you wrote daily population, in that case you’re right