I’m of the firm opinion that Halo’s multiplayer needs to become more welcoming of new and casual players, whilst simultaneously deterring fanatics from dominating each and every match with what can be called, at best, vexingly repetitive tactics. Obviously this is easier said than done, but one thought that I had involved the inclusion of rank-based starting weapons, such that at the lowest ranks, players might start with, say, a battle rifle, and as they proceed through the ranks, they progress to assault rifles, plasma rifles, and perhaps eventually the magnum. This wouldn’t be implemented for every playlist, but primarily for those in which players gain the most skill points.
I’m expecting a largely negative (perhaps even inflammatory) response to this idea, but I’d like to here people’s opinions nonetheless.
sounds good on paper, very intriguing idea.
Halo 4 needs to be extremely cruel to new players (new players as in, under-aged snot nosed kids), why? because they shouldn’t be playing.
Call me what-ever you want. But those little ---- destroyed Call of Duty. Battlefield 3 is dead in the water in its current state. I was team-killed by 3 different people in the same match on Reach…
No training, no tutorial…That’s what the Campaign is for. And I disdain and loathe any high-ranked player who hasn’t played the campaign on Legendary.
Would sound good but the only problem being is the fact that no one would play it apart from New or casual gamers. Which I suppose would be good for them because at least then they wouldnt be paired up with a Reclaimer when they are a Sgt.
What might happen is that, players, good ones, will dominate without doubt, and then they will have advanced equipment that would make new players pee in their pants… so, it would be cool. But I think much harder for the casual iphoners, and wow addicts to play the game without struggle…
No offense, but that is really a terrible idea. And the Halo 4 section is full of terrible ideas.
We should always start off on an equal footing. That is essenstially, the essence of Halo mulitplayer.
I am also a firm believer that, in a situation involving two players (if we take out variables like team shooting etc and it is a straight forward 1v1 ecounter) the better player should win.
You can only get better by playing better players, and learning better tactics. Giving players crutches is bad for gameplay. There is better ways for players to learn the ropes.
I mean, if new comers can’t learn basic gameplay skills from finishing the campaign they are probably playing the wrong game anyway.
> Halo 4 needs to be extremely cruel to new players (new players as in, under-aged snot nosed kids), why? because they shouldn’t be playing.
>
> Call me what-ever you want. But those little ---- destroyed Call of Duty. Battlefield 3 is dead in the water in its current state. I was team-killed by 3 different people in the same match on Reach…
>
> No training, no tutorial…That’s what the Campaign is for. And I disdain and loathe any high-ranked player who hasn’t played the campaign on Legendary.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same sort of players. I agree with what you’ve said; I’m talking about balancing the game for those who are new (whether young or old) to the multiplayer, as well for those who enjoy the multiplayer, but don’t enjoy it when a person crouching in a tiny nook on the opposite side of the map repeatedly drives sniper bullets into their heads despite the game type being objective-based.
> What might happen is that, players, good ones, will dominate without doubt, and then they will have advanced equipment that would make new players pee in their pants…
I don’t know what you mean by this; I’m talking about players starting weapons becoming progressively worse as their ranks go up, so that they need to rely more on their skill than their firepower advantage. Theoretically, a Reclaimer with a plasma pistol should be able to kill a Corporal with a DMR.
> Would sound good but the only problem being is the fact that no one would play it apart from New or casual gamers. Which I suppose would be good for them because at least then they wouldnt be paired up with a Reclaimer when they are a Sgt.
I was owning Heratics and Reclaimers on Reach, and I’m only a major Grade 1.
Your rank isn’t reflective of your skill. it only mans you’ve been playing for a thousand years.
Define equal in real-time.
Go.
> We should always start off on an equal footing. That is essenstially, the essence of Halo mulitplayer.
But the whole point is that we don’t start off on an equal footing. We have mature, casual players playing against snarky adolescents who spend eight hours a day learning the location of every weapon on every map and then using only a small subset of those weapons to kill players even when the objective of the match is something else entirely.
> I mean, if new comers can’t learn basic gameplay skills from finishing the campaign they are probably playing the wrong game anyway.
That’s the whole point of this system; as those new players improved, they, too, would be handicapped, so that they were on par with the “good” players, and the next batch of new, untested players would stand a fighting chance against them.
> But the whole point is that we don’t start off on an equal footing. We have mature, casual players playing against snarky adolescents who spend eight hours a day learning the location of every weapon on every map and then using only a small subset of those weapons to kill players even when the objective of the match is something else entirely.
If you can’t put in the time to learn the maps and get better, don’t complain when someone else can. That has nothing to do with game setup, game mechanics, or anything else. That’s your personal decision. I don’t like the BKs any more than you do, but we do have less of them compared to CoD (where inequality is built into the game, the more you succeed at multiplayer, the better your load outs get), and we should be thankful for that.
Here’s a solution lots of maps, this way they stay fresher longer and out of the memory, then also, don’t expect to be the best player playing, just because you have the luxury too, without fault all the time, off the line, ain’t gonna happen buddy, that what we call cheating, and cheaters never prosper.
> > We should always start off on an equal footing. That is essenstially, the essence of Halo mulitplayer.
>
> But the whole point is that we don’t start off on an equal footing. We have mature, casual players playing against snarky adolescents who spend eight hours a day learning the location of every weapon on every map and then using only a small subset of those weapons to kill players even when the objective of the match is something else entirely.
>
>
>
> > I mean, if new comers can’t learn basic gameplay skills from finishing the campaign they are probably playing the wrong game anyway.
>
> That’s the whole point of this system; as those new players improved, they, too, would be handicapped, so that they were on par with the “good” players, and the next batch of new, untested players would stand a fighting chance against them.
Equal as in the same tools at our disposal. I just can’t agree with a system that is going to punish players for being good at a game, while at the same time giving crutches to new comers. How are they going to learn to get better? By suddelny having the only thing that let them get kills stolen away from them, leaving them with no chance because they have been relying on it?
The tools are there for new comers to learn to use already. I mean, these days one of the campaigns main purposes is a tutorial in how to use the weapons and mechanics effectivily.
There are MUCH better ways of dealing with the problems you are trying to address. In a case like Reach, with it’s social-heavy structure, situations of good players playing bad players is going to happen. The best deterrent for this is to go back to a proper Social/Ranked split scenerio, with a decent working ranking system. It isn’t solved by breaking the fundementals of Halo’s multiplayer gameplay.
> If you can’t put in the time to learn the maps and get better, don’t complain when someone else can. That has nothing to do with game setup, game mechanics, or anything else. That’s your personal decision.
Wow. Nasty, ill-informed comments are just coming out of the woodwork around here lately. Do you actually believe that people who work full-time jobs, study full-time university courses, look after children, and attend to dozens of other responsibilities in their lives (and I’m not talking about myself here; I only do one of those things) don’t have the same right to have fun as the more fanatical players, simply because they don’t try to memorise weapon positions? No doubt some of them do, but there’s only so much you can do against an underhanded player. I wouldn’t call myself a new player by any means (I know most of the weapon locations on most of the maps in Halo 3 and Halo Reach), but even I think its disgusting how some people play, giving no thought to the experiences that other players are having, and abusing certain features of the game simply for the sake of a meaningless number and a fancy symbol that denote, at the end of the day, little more than lost hours that can never be regained.
I think the multiplayer needs to stop catering so exclusively to professional and hardcore players, and start promoting fun as the ultimate goal of the series. Of course, there’s no reason it can’t do both, but that’s not something they can achieve with the current way of thinking.
> I just can’t agree with a system that is going to punish players for being good at a game
If they really are good at the game, then having a different weapon shouldn’t be punishment. If they really are good at the game, they should be able to dominate inferior players with even the worst weapon in the game.
> It isn’t solved by breaking the fundementals of Halo’s multiplayer gameplay.
I hate to say this, but Halo doesn’t really have a set of fundamentals that are set in stone. During the evolution of the series, we’ve seen grenade counts decrease, starting weapons change, equipment added and then removed, armour abilities added, Elites included, Elites removed, and so forth. The multiplayer has changed in each and every game to date; there’s no reason why it can’t do the same in Halo 4.
> > I just can’t agree with a system that is going to punish players for being good at a game
>
> If they really are good at the game, then having a different weapon shouldn’t be punishment. If they really are good at the game, they should be able to dominate inferior players with even the worst weapon in the game.
>
>
>
> > It isn’t solved by breaking the fundementals of Halo’s multiplayer gameplay.
>
> I hate to say this, but Halo doesn’t really have a set of fundamentals that are set in stone. During the evolution of the series, we’ve seen grenade counts decrease, starting weapons change, equipment added and then removed, armour abilities added, Elites included, Elites removed, and so forth. The multiplayer has changed in each and every game to date; there’s no reason why it can’t do the same in Halo 4.
So basically what you are saying is, that the good players, if good, will still beat the bad players? This begs the question of, if the outcome is still going to be the same, what is the point of your idea then?
I disagree. Halo has always stuck to the same princles of starting with the same weapons, with better weapon pick ups on the map. (Granted, AA’s were a step away from this, but not as big as you are asking for).
> Wow. Nasty, ill-informed comments are just coming out of the woodwork around here lately. Do you actually believe that people who work full-time jobs, study full-time university courses, look after children, and attend to dozens of other responsibilities in their lives (and I’m not talking about myself here; I only do one of those things) don’t have the same right to have fun as the more fanatical players, simply because they don’t try to memorise weapon positions? No doubt some of them do, but there’s only so much you can do against an underhanded player. I wouldn’t call myself a new player by any means (I know most of the weapon locations on most of the maps in Halo 3 and Halo Reach), but even I think its disgusting how some people play, giving no thought to the experiences that other players are having, and abusing certain features of the game simply for the sake of a meaningless number and a fancy symbol that denote, at the end of the day, little more than lost hours that can never be regained.
>
> I think the multiplayer needs to stop catering so exclusively to professional and hardcore players, and start promoting fun as the ultimate goal of the series. Of course, there’s no reason it can’t do both, but that’s not something they can achieve with the
I am 27 years old, work 60 hours a week as a technician at a new car dealership, have a 9 year old, a 4 year old and an 8 month old, and I can tell you I have plenty of fun on the odd occasion that I get to spend more than forty five minutes on Reach or 3. I do rather well at it, but sometimes get my -Yoink- handed to me. I mute nearly everyone who talks, because one of my three children is probably hanging near me and they don’t need to hear the language spewing out of the television set.
The multiplayer has never, and will never cater to the professionals and hardcore players. That’s why 2 and 3 had ranked play lists, exclusive lists for SWAT, MLG, Slayer Pro, etc, etc, etc, and why Reach has the arena. That’s one of the things I love about it. Yeah, sometimes the ridiculously good will end up in a relaxed play list, (just as much odds that they’re going to be on your team, you know), but this doesn’t mean they should only be armed with plasma pistols and no shields.
I agree with your sentiment, and maybe there should be a playlist similar to 3 or 2’s ranking system, where you only play people right round your rank, but the idea of a handicap is ridiculous.
Halo is known best by the fact that we are not call of duty and EVERY player gets a fair shot with the same abilities and weapons as another and giving people weapons for progressing ranking(A.K.A. AFKing)would give people advantages so therefore it is impossible to tell who is better because no one is one the same level.
And to solve your problem on making games noob friendly and less harsh the we can have Social for people looking for a good time or a less competitive match and we can have Ranked for people looking for an all out try-hard fest and personal attacks just to keep your rank up and make others look bad
Terrible, terrible idea. To give players an inherent advantage over each other is a broken concept that’s already infected everything else in gaming from BioShock to Blur: giving people access to things others can’t immediately access ruins the balance of the game completely. Even if the later weapons are ‘weaker’ than the starting ones, good players will be able to take advantage of any weapon in their hands. For example, AR chargers in Reach are people I can easily deal with with my trusty Magnum. Others may not be so skilled. But to not give newer players access to the Magnum at all is just fundamentally wrong.
> > If you can’t put in the time to learn the maps and get better, don’t complain when someone else can. That has nothing to do with game setup, game mechanics, or anything else. That’s your personal decision.
>
> Wow. Nasty, ill-informed comments are just coming out of the woodwork around here lately. Do you actually believe that people who work full-time jobs, study full-time university courses, look after children, and attend to dozens of other responsibilities in their lives (and I’m not talking about myself here; I only do one of those things) don’t have the same right to have fun as the more fanatical players, simply because they don’t try to memorise weapon positions? No doubt some of them do, but there’s only so much you can do against an underhanded player. I wouldn’t call myself a new player by any means (I know most of the weapon locations on most of the maps in Halo 3 and Halo Reach), but even I think its disgusting how some people play, giving no thought to the experiences that other players are having, and abusing certain features of the game simply for the sake of a meaningless number and a fancy symbol that denote, at the end of the day, little more than lost hours that can never be regained.
>
> I think the multiplayer needs to stop catering so exclusively to professional and hardcore players, and start promoting fun as the ultimate goal of the series. Of course, there’s no reason it can’t do both, but that’s not something they can achieve with the current way of thinking.
Since I work 5 days a week and am a father of a lovely 2 years old girl, i dont get to play as much as when I used to be at college and University so I Totally understand where you’re coming from. Anyways, the current problem I see with Reach right now and that I hope H4 will correct is that the Matchmaking is broken. Even if I choose to get matched up with players of my own skills, 1 game i’ll be matched against pros and loose the game like 50-20 and the next game I get to be on the “pro” team and win by the same margin… doesn’t make any sense at all…
I just hope H4 does a better job of finding players that will put up a good fight without destroying me and my team. Close and even games are rare on Reach and that’s a shame cuz that’s when MM gets interesting.