Random weapon acquisition ruins sandbox

The random elements of acquiring ordinance (random map location, random personal ordnance) is probably the single most confusingly bad decision Bungie or 343i have made in the history of halo. I mean… they’ve made some doozies, but they have also blazed some trails.

But this…? There is no face nor palm big enough to do it justice.

Let me just start by saying that other than this particular gripe, I enjoy halo 4’s sandbox. I’ve played every halo, and every halo lots. And yes, halo 4’s sand box “isn’t halo” but it hasn’t been ‘halo’ since halo 1, my personal favourite halo for competitive play. But what ever the halo of the day was, it was always better than all other console FPSs.

I’ve been through my high level competitive phase, and although I still play to win, and try to constantly improve, I’m not trying to be the best anymore, and if a lower level player takes a kill or two off me its not going to ruin my day. I’ve also been through my “Halo x is lame, they should turn it into Halo x-1” phase. I think people who say halo 4 should be halo 3 miss the irony that many of the high level competitive players of halo2/3 would say that halo2/3 should be halo 1.

So I am not one of those people pushing for some idealistic ‘pure’ halo, trying to recreate the sandbox of an older game. Shoe horning an old sand box into a new engine is never going to be as good as that sand box on its original engine. And even if you are successful, you are only gaining something you already had.

But…

How exactly do the developers of a triple A FPSs not understand the impact of weapon spawns on weapon balance? Had anyone at 343i actually played an FPS before they made halo 4?

In every halo ever played, people have been whining that the BR is too strong, AR is too easy, Pistol is too quick, ect. Yet no one complained about the rocket launcher. Weird, an instant kill splash damage weapon seems like the obvious choice for the balance winger.

Why is this?

In other halos if you die to a rocket launcher, you know you could have done something about it. Maybe not in the few second leading up to the death, but you could have prevented the rocket launcher getting into enemy hands earlier in the match.

After I passed my super competitive phase, I didn’t find my self timing and denying every single power weapon on every single map any more. But if I was feeling particularly miffed at dying to rockets one day, you could be dam sure you’d have a fight on your hands at the rocket launcher when it spawns.

Halo 4’s ordnance system is implemented in a way that destroys this counter balance to power weapons. Yes dying to a power weapon has sucked since the dawn of halo 1, but it has never sucked more than in halo 4. This is not because there are so many more power weapons floating around in halo 4, though that doesn’t help the cause.

Now when you die to a rocket launcher there is every chance there was nothing you could have done about it. The player holding it most likely just got lucky on some dice roll. There is nothing you can do to control or pre-empt random numbers.

Even if they kept the exact same system, earning points to get personal ordnance and what not, but just got rid of the random factor, it would be worlds better. If everyone got a rocket launcher on their third ordnance drop for example, most obviously it would actually be fair. But more importantly there is something you could do about it. You could prevent a player from reaching a certain amount of points, or at least know the threat in advance.

Before halo 4 came out, 343i said the changes they where making to weapon acquisition where to prevent weapon -Yoink!- through weapon timing. Noobie player would never be able to touch the rocket, because they didn’t know how to time weapons.

Never mind the just having teams skill matched in the first place, the solution to this seems obvious to me; just have a heads up display that shows where and when weapons are going to spawn. In a pro vs pro match they already know this information, so it wouldn’t change a thing. However it would allow newer players to grab or deny rockets, with out 10 year experience in weapon timing.

Frustratingly this feature is already built into halo 4’s engine, which just makes it more perplexing why it wasn’t implemented.

In halo 5, they either need to nerf the crap out of every power weapon OR remove the random elements of weapon acquisition.

My thoughts exactly, OP.

I’ve already written relevant thoughts in other topics, so instead of rewriting them, I’ll just copy them here:

> The point of on-map pickups is to have a metagame. Whereas of course the primary objective of a gametype is to capture the flag, control the hill, or just slay other players, controlling the power weapons and powerups is like a secondary objective. Accomplishing the secondary objective is not necessary, but especially in close matches, your primary objective is made much easier if you do.
>
> Some will say that Halo’s “golden triangle” consists of weapons, grenades, and melee, but I say that it consists of the gametype’s objective, map control, and pickup control. When you eliminate one, the core gameplay falls apart.
>
> By design, Personal Ordnance and killstreaks do away with this metagame. The depth from timing and fighting over weapons on map is gone because I will be rewarded with a power weapon or power up by just playing the game; it doesn’t require any additional effort or strategy on my part. Thus, replacing on-map pickups with any variant of Personal Ordnance in any gametype will, by design, reduce the gametype’s depth.

> The point of games of skill is that the events and unpredictability in the game need to be due to the players’ inputs, not the game’s input. Imagine if Chess pieces randomly appeared or morphed into different pieces. Would the game be as fun or skill-based? Of course not. Perhaps you skillfully and thoughtfully moved your pieces around into a strategic position, and then your opponent’s piece suddenly appears or changes, throwing off your entire strategy, and your opponent wins. Your opponent’s victory wasn’t due to his own efforts, but the game’s.
>
> Compare this to Personal and Random Ordnance. Players no longer have to work together to control an area to gain an advantage in completing the objective. I do whatever I want regardless of how well or poorly I do it, and power weapons will just come to me by POD or chance. What power weapon or powerup I get is completely up to the game and I have no control over it.
>
> And sure, I can see how this can be fun. It was definitely put into place to give lesser-skilled players a chance at getting power weapons, so they don’t have to feel left out or kill their teammates for them. But this should be the aim of closest-skill matchmaking, not gameplay mechanics.
>
> In order to make it easier for unskilled players to compete against skilled players, you have to make skill less relevant. In making skill less relevant, you make the game noncompetitive. And like many others, I play to win, which means I prefer competitive games and gametypes.

> I agree that a more skilled player will be able to react better to unpredictable circumstances, but that does not mean that unpredictable circumstances require skill. By definition, a skill is an ability that depends on practice and knowledge. Since randomness and unpredictability cannot be learned, calling them “skillful” is an oxymoron.
>
> Imagine that a marksman enters a contest where with every shot, the sights are adjusted by a random amount in a random direction. Would the outcome more likely be based on skill or by chance?

> Static weapon spawns means predictability. With predictability comes the ability to plan. With the ability to plan comes strategy.
>
> Random weapon spawns (Personal and Random Ordnance) means unpredictability. You can’t plan for something that’s unpredictable. You can’t strategize if you can’t plan.
>
> Therefore, static weapon spawns leads to more strategic gameplay.

Sorry for the large wall of text.

I believe there is more competition in the race for ‘top confusingly bad decision’ than you say, but it sure is a contender.

It’s a fun gametype for some (of us) casuals. But it should not have dominated the playlists at launch.

Does anyone know who the vaunted pros who did the in house testing were? Bet those guys have kept pretty quiet!