> This mentality doesn’t really make sense to me. Ok, so in your example, we’ve gone from being shot knocking you out of scope (with the intent of making it harder to hit your enemy while under fire.) to being shot knocking you out of aim (again, with the intent of making it harder to hit your enemy under fire.) So what we have here is a different mechanic with an, at least, similar effect on gameplay. Both require skill to overcome, neither is inherently more or less skilled than the other, just different skills. It’s different than what you’re used to, and that’s cool. However, that doesn’t instantly make it an invalid or “bad” mechanic. (I know, you didn’t implicitly say it was bad. Again, not directed at you per say, just using you as an example.)
As a matter of fact, knocking your aim off is much less of a deterrent than knocking you out of scope. First of all, in general, it’s much more difficult to reset your aim when knocked out of scope, especially at long range or if you are just turning your reticule when it happens. More often than not, this forces skilled aim in direct encounters when both players are out of scope and therefore both players have a smaller target to shoot.
However, the most important difference comes when you have a sniper weapon against any other weapon. Not getting knocked out of scope makes snipers easier to use by an order of magnitude when you don’t have the danger of being forced to no-scope. Previously, a sniper would either be required to either pull a fast quick-scope or no-scope, making sniping more demanding. Now anyone can hard-scope with the sniper, even in direct encounters, making the weapon so much easier to use.
So yes, I do believe one is actually inherently less skilled as a mechanic. It should also be noted that getting knocked out of scope is a predictable mechanic whereas getting your aim randomly thrown around the screen is a random mechanic. Naturally, predictable mechanics are more skilled than ones that behave arbitrarily. Never should the game take control of the players aim in such an arbitrary fashion. In a well designed game, the player can control the game, but how can they when they aren’t even given full control over their aim?
> I think everyone needs to step back and forget the “competitive-ness.” Ask yourselves, is it really less skilled, <mark>or is it that you don’t have the easy win you once had in previous Halo games</mark>? Is it really that random power weapon drops are bad for the game, or is it that you don’t like the fact that you can’t reliably get that sniper rifle most of the time? It’s human nature to distrust and resist change, but ask yourself if it’s the change you dislike, or the simple fact that is was changed.
The highlighted part is probably the most common attempt at counter argument whenever someone says that a mechanic in halo 4 is bad. However, a matter of fact is, that’s nothing but an ad hominem argument, and therefore invalid to begin with. When you stop question people’s ability to adapt, something that is highly irrelevant to the subject at hand, you may want to try to come up with some actual counter arguments for their arguments.
> Too often I feel that the argument against change and the argument for a return to the old ways is that the person making the argument was better in the old ways.
But you see, that’s something you have no way of proving, nor does the opposition have no way of proving it wrong. If such arguments were the basis of all debates, no problems would ever get solved. For your arguments to be relevant, they need to concern the subject at hand and not the person behind the opposing argument.
> Not to say there aren’t valid arguments to disliking random drops but to say it makes the game less competitive is a bit of a stretch. And I will have to disagree with the idea that a competitive game doesn’t have any randomness in it. Getting a lucky break is very much a part of a competitive game.
>
> For example when a running back simply loses control of the ball in a football game or a lucky bounce in golf. In fact I would argue that most of the time it is the randomness that keeps competitive games alive and interesting. Its learning to beat a new system or being able to think on your toes.
As a matter of fact, randomness does make a game less competitive. The most predictable games are usually the ones that require the most skill. An example of such a game is arguably one of the most skillful games in the world: chess. In terms of mental skills, games like football and golf don’t even come near chess in competitiveness.
Now why do we accept some randomness in games? Why is it acceptable that a golfer hits a hole-in-one with their eyes closed? There are different types of randomness to games, one is the total unpredictability of basic mechanics. Such randomness is, for example, throwing a dice. It’s a purposely random part of the game that is integrated to the game’s mechanics for reason or another. Especially common in gambling where the fun is based around the idea of randomness, not skill.
Then there is micro randomness; randomness that isn’t an integral part of the game’s mechanics, but that just happens for reason or another. For example, getting a random stuck in Halo is micro randomness. It’s a byproduct of players’ ability to throw grenades and move wherever they want. We can’t prevent it, and I don’t think we even should because it happens so rarely that its effect on skill is negligible and it can be fun when it happens.
> I understand your concerns for the new mechanic but I’m not sure any of these new changes make the game unbalanced or less competitive, they just require a new type of strategy, and I personally am ok with that.
I am rather sure you already guessed which type of randomness the ordnance drops are. They are purposefully arbitrary and out of the players control. As the player can’t control them, they make that area of skill irrelevant, therefore making the game less competitive. As they are outside the player’s control, there is no real strategy to them, no real way to control them.