Balance = FUN

Games Other Halo
1

In the halo community there are two main types of gamer that are often mentioned in these forums, the competitive gamer, and the casual. there are many topics on these forums in which casual and competitive gamers get into arguments, however, i think the one thing that they all can (should?) agree on is that having a balanced, fair game is in everyones best interest.

One problem that I have encountered in Halo over the years is a situation in which one team has completely and utterly dominated the other. This occurs most often on big vehicle maps when one team, through either luck or teamwork, is able to gain control of all the maps heavy vehicles and weapons, leaving the loosing team with no viable method of fighting back. I have been on both sides of these situations, and honestly neither side is very fun. Halo is a game, and should be fun for everyone involved, competitive or not.

In order for a game to be fun, every player needs to be able to feel like they are contributing, and like they have a chance to win. I feel that is is important for there to always be a way to break situations like the one mentioned above. While this option shouldn’t necessarily be easy, it should allow a team to at least break the winning teams advantage and level the playing field as long as the skill gap is relatively close, as it should be in a properly match-made game.

This gives the loosing team a chance to get back in the game, and adds a degree of challenge for the winning team, who has to fight to maintain their lead rather than simply riding on an early advantage for the entire game. I feel that this would make games more fun for everyone involved. The causal players can have their fun, and the competitive gamers can have their challenge (I think most competitive players would agree that having a game handed to you isn’t very satisfying).

I’m not going to suggest any solutions yet because I want to hear other people solutions first. These solutions could either be something that could be easily implemented in Reach, or added in Halo 4.

If you agree, I’d like to hear your ideas on how we could active a more balanced and fun gaming experience.

If you do not agree, I’d also like to hear why (and saying “L2P you *** N00B” is not a valid reason).

TLDR = Balance is fun, one-sided games are not.

Discuss:

2

I like balance and competitiveness.

Like MLG, which goes with settings that try to be as close to Halo CE.

Edit: No casual Halo player will say that balance isn’t fun, exept if they like game like CoD.

Edit 2: That’s what the elo system, or TrueSkill system were made for; so that mainly the casuals can get fair games, it was not designed for the competitive.

It’s either absent in Reach everywere exept MLG and Arena, or it just broken anywhere else.

3

I always felt Matchmaking was one of Halo’s best features.

I do worry that the franchise is continuing to move in the other direction though. The BPR system on our service records, which I haven’t seen discussed in detail, wouldn’t work well in the Matchmaking systems were you are placed in games with an equal chance of winning or losing.

I fear BPR is going to be more prominent in H4, meaning many of the items the OP brought up won’t be addressed. I hope I’m wrong.

4

My vote is no.

If balance=fun , then it would be impossible for Living Dead to be as popular as it is, that game variant is far from balanced.

Ironically when a little bit of balance was introduced via the new community maps in LD (thanks guy, I appreciate it, really) not only did some players throw a fit, that playlist has lost population since the new maps =/

I have been on forums coming up on a year now and I have come to a couple of conclusions, competitive players are obsessed with the notion of balance, which they attempt to implement constantly into every facet of Halo. Unfortunately casuals just dont care about balance at all and it seems the more “balance” introduced, the less fun for casuals =/

Casuals= Vast majority

Competitive players= Minuscule portion of the population.

5

WINNING = FUN. I dont care if the enemy team are having the worst time of their gaming lives. I’m winning there not…

6

> My vote is no.
>
> If balance=fun , then it would be impossible for Living Dead to be as popular as it is, that game variant is far from balanced.
>
> Ironically when a little bit of balance was introduced via the new community maps in LD (thanks guy, I appreciate it, really) not only did some players throw a fit, that playlist has lost population since the new maps =/
>
> I have been on forums coming up on a year now and I have come to a couple of conclusions, competitive players are obsessed with the notion of balance, which they attempt to implement constantly into every facet of Halo. Unfortunately casuals just dont care about balance at all and it seems the more “balance” introduced, the less fun for casuals =/
>
> Casuals= Vast majority
>
> Competitive players= Minuscule portion of the population.

My point is more for the standard game types like slayer, objective, and BTB. other game modes which are IMBA by nature don’t count as they are intended to be that way. does that change your answer?

7

> Casuals= Vast majority
>
> Competitive players= Minuscule portion of the population.

I completely agree with you here- which is why I don’t expect to see many of the things I hope for.

> Unfortunately casuals just dont care about balance at all and it seems the more “balance” introduced, the less fun for casuals =/

I don’t agree with you here. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for sandbox gametypes- LD being one of them. But I don’t see how getting mudhole stomped in TS is a great time.

I think you can accomplish both by taking some pointers from COD. Everyone (I’m generalizing here) like the bells and whistles in COD- the emblems, the icons, the unlocks, all prominently displayed.

I think it’s completely possible to appease many types of Halo players by making them all feel like top dog. Competitive players can have their onyxs or their 50s using a balanced matchmaking system, more casual players can work for golden BRs or something.

Want to brag about your competitive skill- pick your emblem that contains your rank or division. That isn’t your game? Pick an emblem you unlocked with a scantily clad Cortana sprawled next to some hallucinogenic plants found on planet Reach.

8

The only way every player is going to have a chance to win is if they are good… Casual players tend to get dominated by competative players because we are generally better. somthing casual players don’t understand.

If your not prepared to concentrate for 10 minutes, call out and play at your best your not going to win… yet still the casual community complains.

THIS is why ranked and social was the best idea EVER.

9

It wouldn’t matter. Everyone has a different opinion and definition of what balanced and broken is about a video game. There is no legitimate/definitive answer.

Being that the community is so Tug of War about what’s what, creation/implementation/updates should be solely left up to the developer. That’s how gaming started and that’s how it should be period. You want to make big changes you consider better/solutions? Get a job in the industry.

I take what I can get and appreciate getting anything at all.

10

> Casual players tend to get dominated by competative players because we are generally better.

Well, in theory a good matchmaking system would solve for this. In cases where what you say is accurate (Im pretty sure that there are crappy competitive players and scary-good casual players) the casual players would have lower ratings than the competitive players, and thus they would not play together. In theory.

11

> Being that the community is so Tug of War about what’s what, creation/implementation/updates should be solely left up to the developer. That’s how gaming started and that’s how it should be period. You want to make big changes you consider better/solutions? Get a job in the industry.

If I had an opportunity to work in the gaming industry, I would. And you are right. 343i gets the final decision on everything. But if the community sees a problem, we should say it. If 343i looks into and agrees that there is a problem, they will fix it. If they do nothing, we can only assume that either they didn’t see the post, or don’t think it is a problem. Whichever it was, we will never know. Nor does it really matter, as the result is the same either way.

12

I like balance in Halo. If one player is better than another there should not be any gimmicks to prevent them from unleashing full and total fury upon the enemies in an even playing field. They earned it by being the better/smarter player so I see nothing wrong with that.

13

> I like balance in Halo. If one player is better than another there should not be any gimmicks to prevent them from unleashing full and total fury upon the enemies in an even playing field. They earned it by being the better/smarter player so I see nothing wrong with that.

Im not suggesting that there should be any gimmicks. Im just looking for a way to ensure that the field remains playable even when one team manages to told the playing field in their favor. Im not saying Red should not be able to gain a tactical advantage over blue team. What I’m saying is that Blue should have a chance to even the field again. Sure, Blue was outplayed. But just because Red made a good move in the first 5 minutes doesn’t mean that they should be able to cruise through the next 10 virtually unopposed.

A coordinated team might stand a chance in this situation, but in a dozen games not even 5 people (on any team, it seems) have microphones. they aren’t even in party chat either.

I think the main problem comes in vehicle based big team battles when one team should they gain full map control (and often control of the enemy teams vehicles) can prevent the other team from reaching either their own vehicles, or weapons capable of dealing with vehicles. A quick fix would be having at least one effective anti vehicle weapon in or close to the spawn area, however I do not think that is the best option.

14

> My point is more for the standard game types like slayer, objective, and BTB. other game modes which are IMBA by nature don’t count as they are intended to be that way. does that change your answer?

No, for example, AA loadouts, 100% bloom are considered grossly imbalanced, yet TS remains the most popular playlist by far.

When you state that balance is key to overall enjoyment, you neglect to recognize that balance is subjective to the individual.

My idea of balance is that everybody is subject to the same rules, game on.

15

> I completely agree with you here- which is why I don’t expect to see many of the things I hope for.

While I am not sure what it is you are hoping for, 343 has gone to great lengths to start moving Reach in what appears to be a more “competitive” direction.

I think it is no coincidence that the TU targets JP and AL for nerfs while bringing bloom down, short of completely removing bloom and AA, this is fairly close to what I imagine a “competitive” type player would do if they could get their hands on Reach.

So, take heart, it appears that those in control of Reach right now, have the competitive consumer squarely in their sights, because Im pretty sure I didnt see a horde of casuals burning the forums up for AA nerfs and bloom adjustments =/

16

Agreed, win or lose, evenly matched groups of folks have always been the funnest matches for me. Like I said as long as its entertaining I could care less if I lose. Throw in a few friends on mic its that much better.

17

> While I am not sure what it is you are hoping for, 343 has gone to great lengths to start moving Reach in what appears to be a more “competitive” direction.

I apologize if I was not clear- I did not consider AAs or bloom in my thought process at all. I only mean balanced skill level, based on truskill- some definition based on win/loses to find a balanced game. Reach moved far away from that compared to other Halos.

I think balanced Matchmaking is important part of what makes Halo “Halo”. Mechanics, AAs, maps, you could argue about all day- but I’ll happily adapt to that.

18

> My vote is no.
>
> If balance=fun , then it would be impossible for Living Dead to be as popular as it is, that game variant is far from balanced.

Eh, not really true. Living Dead has temporal (time) balance. You are a Zombie one round, but you might get to be a human next round so the opportunites are balanced. Like Baseball for example.

The fact that that temporal balance isn’t perfect is well documented (zombie selection is random so you may be a zombie never or all three rounds), and the statistical (player traits), spactial (map layout) and scoring imbalance lead to a per round experience which is still highly flawed.

There are also degrees of balance. For example playing 1 round Invasion (a la the Beta) was grossly, obscenely imbalanced. While 2-round Invasion (what we play now), is perfectly, temporally balanced.

Team Slayer on Highground is sorta balanced since they get different weapons as well as different terrain, and there is no static spawning, while Team Slayer on The Pit is very highly balanced since the terrain and weapon layouts are mirror’s of each other.

> I have been on forums coming up on a year now and I have come to a couple of conclusions, competitive players are obsessed with the notion of balance, which they attempt to implement constantly into every facet of Halo. Unfortunately casuals just dont care about balance at all and it seems the more “balance” introduced, the less fun for casuals =/

Personally I think a lot of self-proclaimed competitive players constantly obsess over the wrong type of balance. They seem to want this perfectly even, perfectly flat playing field of opportunity for all players at all times (like say, basketball) without even considering temporal balance as an option (like baseball).

19

It seems that the op’s balance is synonymous with tight competition.

When players are matched with other similarly skilled players, when teams are balanced, then the battle is going to be close- more competitive. Improperly balanced teams end up in one team losing by a large amount- while it may be fun for the one team to win, it is rarely fun to play and know you cannot win.

Whether or not reach’s mechanics promote skilled play is irrelevant. If the matches being made were more balanced then the matches would be more fun.

I’m surprised that no one is arguing for the so called skill gap reducing aspects in reach as a counter for the crappy match making. If the skill gap is reduced enough, then the imbalance in skill of the matches is counteracted and the game would be more fun.

20

Plunderfull

> Unfortunately casuals just dont care about balance at all and it seems the more “balance” introduced, the less fun for casuals =/

>

> I don’t agree with you here. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for sandbox gametypes- LD being one of them. But I don’t see how getting mudhole stomped in TS is a great time.

TS is the home of what competitive players consider unbalanced casual friendly mechanics AL, 100% bloom, JP etc etc, and yet lots-o-casuals, perfectly happy casuals, content with the game of Reach.

I think the problem we are having is a semantics problem, “balance” as you see it involves exacting sameness for every player from the beginning of the match, which is a fair and valid point.

However I should explain that my ideal of balance is simply that everybody have the same options available to them at the beginning of the game. That to me is balance with a side of personal preference which appears to be something that is very attractive to the average game consumer (ala CoD classes).

> I think you can accomplish both by taking some pointers from COD. Everyone (I’m generalizing here) like the bells and whistles in COD- the emblems, the icons, the unlocks, all prominently displayed.

While not extremely familiar with CoD, as I dont play any of them, I have a basic concept of the game and it appears to me that the ability for each player to customize their game experience in each game. So I agree, individual in game accouterments appear to be something most people are interested in.

> I think it’s completely possible to appease many types of Halo players by making them all feel like top dog. Competitive players can have their onyxs or their 50s using a balanced matchmaking system, more casual players can work for golden BRs or something.

Possible but unfortunately its hard to gauge overall customer satisfaction on forums, mostly people come to forums to complain =/

> Want to brag about your competitive skill- pick your emblem that contains your rank or division. That isn’t your game? Pick an emblem you unlocked with a scantily clad Cortana sprawled next to some hallucinogenic plants found on planet Reach.

Nameplates, haunted helmets, flaming heads, onyx ratings, cR, 1-50 etc etc are all great ideas, rewards are where its at in video games. So total agreement there =D