more than aesthetic armors

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Ok so we are all aware that besides looks, there is no difference from armor piece to armor piece. Kinda strange when you think about it huh? you want this to change too right? me too. lets make armor more than aesthetic.

There are significant differences between which armor you want. which one you choose to have your Spartan wear into battle must influence how he/she performs.

In order to avoid too much confusion I propose only making the helmet and the chest piece have an effect. everything else is whatever you want. OK so here are some ideas I have drawn from the descriptions on halo nation.

aviator: Spartan pilots meeting D3-17 regulations and higher must be outfitted in AVIATOR-class armor for all Broadsword A/X engagement operations to comply with standard asset security protocols and the Budgetary Retention Hearings of 2554.

helmet: enemies nametags are shown brighter.
armor: player gravity decreased.

commando: COMMANDO-class armor originated by GEN1 as a prototype for standardized team leader kits, though it now endures expansive cross-role and distribute use with the equipment’s mass production under the Naphtali Contractor Corporation.

helmet: better zoom response time
armor: move slightly faster

deadeye: DEADEYE-class armor, optimized for extraordinarily long-range target purging, was originally tested in the vast ship graveyards hanging in the orbital plane above Tribute’s northern pole, a haunting reminder of the former Covenant’s obliterative might.

helmet: increased scoping distance
armor: reduced enemy aim assist when scoped on you

enforcer: As of May 2553, all ZULU-level classified Office of Naval Intelligence sites must require security detail to wear fully operable ENFORCER-class armor, as tested under Ankara Field Stricture BL58-0 and approved by Ordnance Commission.

helmet: take x2 body shot damage instead of headshot
armor: distance you appear on enemy radar decreased slightly

these are just a few ideas for a couple different armor sets. so what do you think! there are so many different armors they all should have unique abilities if you ask me.

2

Disregarding the impacts your idea would have on balancing gameplay, linking aesthetical armor pieces with modifications (Perks) would completely destroy the individualism, uniqueness and creativity the aesthetical character customization offers.
Everyone would select or rather would be forced to select the armor set that gives him/her the “best” advantages even though the look of the armor doesn’t appeal to him/her in the slightest.

I respect your idea but personally, I would be extremely pissed if that happens for the reasons I have stated.
That’s why I think armor customization should stay solely aesthetical.

3

I have to agree with Swift. Until Halo gets an RPG installment, armor should stay a purely aesthetic feature.

4

ok so the concern is you might not like the look of the armor AND the bonus it gives. So how about for each armor set there are several variants all with a different look. this way players will still be able to choose from several different looks for particular piece of armor while maintaining the bonus that they like.

5

There are too many variables added with this for the game to keep any kind of balance. I think that balance should be 343i’s biggest priority for H5.

6

> ok so the concern is you might not like the look of the armor AND the bonus it gives. So how about for each armor set there are several variants all with a different look. this way players will still be able to choose from several different looks for particular piece of armor while maintaining the bonus that they like.

That wouldn’t help.
For example, I like the bonus (perk) with that a specific armor set would enhance me but I cannot stand the aesthetic design of the set. On the other hand the look of a specific armor set appeals to me but its bonus does not.
Now I would basically be forced to select the ugly armor set that gives me my prefered bonus. Now like you suggested I could perhaps choose out of 3 different version out of the set. A quite restricted selection.

On the other hand with an armor customization that is solely aesthetical I can freely select and combine the pieces I visually prefer and I am able to create a really unique and individual character.

In addition, that is only my main issue.
Other things that would strongly bother me are the “bonuses” themselves, which will very likely cause unbalance and inequality like the current version of Perks are doing.
Then all armor set would have to be available from beginning to keep it at least fair for every player.
When the armor is solely aesthetical you can connect them with several unlocking systems and give people a little goal with that.

I cannot find any points that would let me prefer such an armor customization over the current, purely aesthetic one.

7

i’d rather armor stay aesthetic. i’m all for more customization but not the kind the thats going to throw off balance and after halo 4 we have enough balance issues to worry about as it is.

8

No thanks, too many variables leading to more unbalance. Not to mention the aesthetic stagnation that would occur due to everyone using the same “best armour combination”.

9

oh come on, come on, work will be done to make sure everything is balanced. wouldn’t this be fun? different armors realistically strengthening your Spartan in different ways.

10

I can stand a slight AE.
Like using Gugnir in conjunction with a laser. Or a scanner helmet with a sniper. Change the scope, give it a little more zoom. But no more than that.

11

> oh come on, come on, work will be done to make sure everything is balanced. wouldn’t this be fun? different armors realistically strengthening your Spartan in different ways.

Balancing different aspects like jump height/gravity, zoom speed, and player movement speed is (dare I say it)impossible. They are completely different components of the game. How do you balance my enemy scoping in on me faster (even more of an advantage if de-scope returns, which I personally hope it does) get balanced by how bright my friend-or-foe tags appear? Attempting to make them so subtle that they don’t cause problems would make them a redundant concept to include.

Halo gameplay is supposed to have players “physically” equal at-spawn. This idea not only bends that principle, but bends it while having an effect on what armor players want to wear/how many armor permutations would be made.

In short, the inclusion of “perks” in Halo was unfitting and negatively received by many people. Making perks tied to appearance wouldn’t solve the problems they cause, but would create new ones.

12

No thank you. That’d create a mess, especially if armors would have to be unlocked through commendations/achievements/bought or whatever means there are to unlock them. Even if they were unlocked from the start I would be against it.

Not only because of how ugly my Spartan may look for an optimal bonus, but the utter chaos and unpredictability it brings when I’m playing. The perks now add to the unpredictability, now this would just make it even more ridiculous than it is now.

> oh come on, come on, work will be done to make sure everything is balanced. wouldn’t this be fun? different armors realistically strengthening your Spartan in different ways.

You know the best and easiest balance that doesn’t require a lot of resources? Equal starts. You know what strengten your spartan’s abilities realistically? Your own skill. Wouldn’t that be fun? No perks, no ability changing armor, one gun and you.

13

Maybe have the light looking armor, like the Narrow-Legs, have an ever so slight boost in speed…like 2-5%. Yet they have slightly less damage resistance, as that armor covers less of the body. Vice versa for medium and heavy looking armor.

Why only slight boosts/decrease in speed/damage resist? They’re Spartans that can flip Tanks…mobility only gets limited by how much armor is in place and collides with one another. This idea will probably get shot down…but it’s getting thrown out there regardless.

14

Ignore anyone complaining about balance issues with this idea. They are trying to look at your idea with how halo 1-3 used to work. So issues of course are going to pop up all over the place. TBH i want 343’s games to break the shackles from halo 1-3 for MP.

Anyway while it’s a great sounding idea i have something similar to it that i want your opinion on. Instead of armor giving different benifits why not have the tactical/support packages ADD something visual to your armor set? I had an idea awhile ago about a new tactical package. It would allow you to block an energy sword or gravhammer swing if timed correctly. The visual add on would be different looking glove pieces that glow when the player can block. A player could block 2 times before needing to recharge which takes 15 seconds. The glow would also be visible in first person so the player knows when he can.

And before anyone goes and hates on me i loved halo 1-3 for many years. But i don’t want the same or close to it which is what most people seem to be asking for who are against halo 4. I always hear “no we just want to build off of it” But they never suggest how. It’s like telling someone their wrong without telling them why.

“braking the shackles.” I didn’t mean this offensively. It just means that sticking to the 1-3 formula is severely more limited in both a creative and gameplay aspect. Halo reach and 4 started to expand more on the universe and what it’s like to be a spartan. Which i am enjoying. Before anyone screams BALANCE>realism/story etc. There are plenty of ways to balance things without making things severely simplistic.

15

Your idea would suggest that instead of picking the armor that I like to wear, which I change frequently whenever I play, I now have to pick armor that is efficient for the map, and the weapons I may or may not get to use.

On top of this, I now may be brought down by new players because they may not have a clue what works and what doesn’t, and would die, repeatedly, because someone has a complete advantage over them. Also, as a person that enjoys using vehicles, I really despise the fact that I would have to play the game for a long while to be useful in a vehicle, as opposed to simply getting into the vehicle and perform just fine and as well as everyone else can(AND can wear the armor I actually want to wear!)

This isn’t an RPG where you fight enemy NPCs. This is an Arena FPS where MM is handing you human opponents. I do NOT want to deal with this kind of frustration in this particular scenario, and would be a downgrade to not only the gameplay, but to a simple feature that is meant to make a player feel like a unique individual.

I don’t like this idea. I find no redeeming qualities in this suggestion, nor do I believe that this would improve this feature. As a frequent user of this feature, this would be a letdown.

> BWO RazrStorm wrote:
>
> Ignore anyone complaining about balance issues with this idea. They are trying to look at your idea with how halo 1-3 used to work. So issues of course are going to pop up all over the place. TBH i want 343’s games to break the shackles from halo 1-3 for MP.
>
>
> Anyway while it’s a great sounding idea i have something similar to it that i want your opinion on. Instead of armor giving different benifits why not have the tactical/support packages ADD something visual to your armor set? I had an idea awhile ago about a new tactical package. It would allow you to block an energy sword or gravhammer swing if timed correctly. The visual add on would be different looking glove pieces that glow when the player can block. A player could block 2 times before needing to recharge which takes 15 seconds. The glow would also be visible in first person so the player knows when he can.
>
>
> And before anyone goes and hates on me i loved halo 1-3 for many years. But i don’t want the same or close to it which is what most people seem to be asking for who are against halo 4. I always hear “no we just want to build off of it” But they never suggest how. It’s like telling someone their wrong without telling them why.
>
> “braking the shackles.” I didn’t mean this offensively. It just means that sticking to the 1-3 formula is severely more limited in both a creative and gameplay aspect. Halo reach and 4 started to expand more on the universe and what it’s like to be a spartan. Which i am enjoying. Before anyone screams BALANCE>realism/story etc. There are plenty of ways to balance things without making things severely simplistic.

I do agree that Halo, and just about every game out there, should improve upon the game in order to validate a $60 purchase. However, there is a limit to how much you can change.

Halo 4 showed this by adding in a Loadout feature with too much customization that broke vehicle gameplay to the point that every BTB game is a Heavy BTB, CQB maps feel congested with 1SK Boltshots, and Long Range combat hardly giving anyone breathing room. That’s just from Primary Weapon, Secondary Weapons and Grenades alone. Had 343 shown restraint, this feature probably wouldn’t have gotten such harsh criticism and added a breath of fresh air to the game(even though it would still have Primary Weapon balance issues). Instead, the new ideas ended up suffocating the game further and done more damage to a franchise that had already had dealt with a bump on the road.

On top of this, almost all of these issues adds more hassle to a game in which the design is that there shouldn’t be a hassle when you pick the game up and play. My ghost shouldn’t be inferior to another player’s ghost just because he is driving it. His gun shouldn’t outperform mine in anyway just because he is holding it. This doesn’t add longevity. It adds frustration. It continues the trend that players have repeatedly asked Bungie, and now 343, to stop: Quit letting the game decide who wins.

Yes, new features should be essential. At the same time, they should not replace core gameplayfor the hell of it. If it isn’t broken, don’t break it. Instead of trying to make the next game of a series(which should have consistancy to it) into something different, make a spin-off. If that’s successful, support it. If not, write it off as a 1-time thing.

16

Look, even if we did implement this and we find it cool for the first week or so your idea is really just perks. You don’t ever see your armor in a first person view, and it would really just be using a perk. We need balance in Halo 5, and your idea would not contribute to that.

17

I have to disagree with these suggestions, with the only reason being, that if these were implemented, Halo would lose rest of the balance it has.

And there being a chance of some horrible armor having good bonuses? No thanks, i would like to make my Spartan look good without having to think what bonuses that armor has.

18

Okay so as I read this thread I kept seeing the word “balanced” over and over again in several of the response posts.
“Balanced” has alway been the battlecry of people that can’t stand the thought that they might bring a knife to a gunfight and then have to adapt their tactics in the middle of the fight.
If different armor components had different wieghts, shield strengths, and offered ability augments hand in hand with a detrement in another area then it would actually be <insert gasp of horror here> Realistic…
But of course we absolutely have to avoid anything resemebling logic or realism in the developement of something like that because of that old battlecry, “BALANCE!”.
If a particular armor combination meant for kicking in doors offers higher shields how will the melee attackers be able to own them with a single swing?
If a particular armor combination has lower shields for increased camo time how will we be able to spot them for that dome shot?
Two options come to mind… Teamwork or Tactics.

Personally I would love to see it if 343 would stop pandering to those that scream “Balance” anytime a change threatens their ability to own another player and actually put into effect the things they claim their armors were developed for.
As it is “Balance” has done nothing for the game in my opinion except turn it into a mathmatical puzzle with the most important variable being who has the better connection.

19

Cool concept, and I’ve had the idea myself in the past. But it just feels like too much of a departure from the Halo I have played for nearly 15 years now. I tried giving Halo 4’s perks a chance, but eventually ruled “nay” on those, too.

20

> Okay so as I read this thread I kept seeing the word “balanced” over and over again in several of the response posts.
> “Balanced” has alway been the battlecry of people that can’t stand the thought that they might bring a knife to a gunfight and then have to adapt their tactics in the middle of the fight.
> If different armor components had different wieghts, shield strengths, and offered ability augments hand in hand with a detrement in another area then it would actually be <insert gasp of horror here> Realistic…
> But of course we absolutely have to avoid anything resemebling logic or realism in the developement of something like that because of that old battlecry, “BALANCE!”.
> If a particular armor combination meant for kicking in doors offers higher shields how will the melee attackers be able to own them with a single swing?
> If a particular armor combination has lower shields for increased camo time how will we be able to spot them for that dome shot?
> Two options come to mind… Teamwork or Tactics.
>
> Personally I would love to see it if 343 would stop pandering to those that scream “Balance” anytime a change threatens their ability to own another player and actually put into effect the things they claim their armors were developed for.
> As it is “Balance” has done nothing for the game in my opinion except turn it into a mathmatical puzzle with the most important variable being who has the better connection.

I never understood people who don’t like balanced gameplay.
What is so great about games that are based on what gear you have? Are people who like those games just people who want the game to be easy to them? Do they not want to learn how to be good at the game? Because, adding things such as armour that would give you more health decreases skill the player has, and makes the game easier for him/her.

The system we had in the original trilogy was balanced, since everything was based on your SKILL and what weapon you had. The new system would just be based on your gear and your weapon, not your skill.

so, basically, all the new players would get demolished by some player who has played for days, and has the best gear. Where is the fun in that?

So, in a nutshell, balance makes the game fair and fun, not having balance makes the game frustrating grinding and only people who have fun are the ones with the best gear.

And, for the record, it seems that most people dont play in teams, nor do they make tactics.