> 2535464451695009;11548:
> > 2533274886529017;11522:
> > True, but I should have been more clear about that. No Spartan Abilities or whatever. Just Halo 3 with map pickup abilities.
> >
> > I’d still be iffy on it, mainly because if the maps are designed around a lack of abilities, introducing abilities that effectively break that balance are going to be (IMO) jarring. I’ll explain this more below.
> >
> > If the abilities are balanced to apply to all maps, even the smallest ones, then shouldn’t they just be an extension of yourself, and not the crutch, much like the abilities in Overwatch? Obviously they function extremely differently in every aspect of the game, but everything counters everything in Overwatch, and no one is completely overpowered, even with all the different abilities. Again, if Jetpack is balanced to be an extension of yourself and not a crutch, then the effectiveness would be reduced to more open and/or vertical maps right? Louder audio cues, exaggerated particle effects, and radar and directional HUD indicators help to “nerf” any ability so that it wouldn’t be perceived as OP as it actually seems to be.
> >
> > The latter point goes back to how those additional cues won’t occur until the ability’s in use, but if you need something as drastic as directional HUD indicators (Presumably to say “hey, this person’s using a jetpack”), then why even include it? You shouldn’t need to explicitly state to users through visual feedback that someone has the ability as a balance mechanism, unless I misunderstood. It also revolves around giving the player in possession of the jetpack the ability to do much more than players without it. See, with an ability like Overshield, or Camo, your base traits are changed. You have more shields, or you become invisible, respectively. BUT, one common trait is that they do not allow you to do more than your common opponent in any way.
> > Whether or not you decide to become aggressive and push with an OS, or become sneaky with a camo is your choice, but you’re bound to what other players can do, and thus, despite the ability to take more damage, or remain nearly unseen, they maintain their own ability to counter you on a fair ground. Overshield and camo are enough of a buff, without being a trump to basic movement. These powerups don’t break how the map flows, or make it unpredictable in the sense that you can move from one altitude to another without taking the stairs as the other 7 players in your game do. I’ll try and summarize it: I dislike movement altering abilities solely because they give you a buff that goes against what the entire game’s powerup system’s established. The difference is that OW’s abilities are based around movement increases, damage blockers/counters and things outside of what Halo does, and the abilities within fit the game and its flow.
> >
> > However, you can anticipate where they may come from because there’s only so many places that you can jetpack up, like in Guardian for example. The map layout is practically two layers of the same thing. Some maps have jetpack, and others have thrusters (they can burst up kinda like 3’s Grav Lift equipment too) or sprint (limited, no shield recharge).
> >
> > But jetpack isn’t solely meant for contextual, static places of upwards advancement. There’re only “so many” places you can go up geographically, but jetpack’s a constant variable, and you can do more with it than just go up those routes. I don’t think it’s as possible to anticipate its use, given how sporadically it can be used. But the other question, if you had jetpack, thrusters, and potentially grav lift, which one are you going to go with? There’s also the issue of redundancy. And those three abilities would do the exact same thing.
> >
> > The secondary abilities like Hologram and Hardlight Shield (if it takes damage) could still be implemented much like normal weapon pickups. What if abilities were on a recharge timer, but were treated like buffs in RPG and MOBA games? Honestly, I don’t know if that would be seen as an annoyance or lead to more depth, but I don’t think Halo can stay the same, fundamentally, as it was before Reach if it wants to bring in a new audience and older fans.
> >
> > Possibly, but I think it’d be more of an annoyance compared to how things hard handled now. However, you won’t bring in a new audience by changing your core game so radically it alienates your long time fans. You’ll bring in a new audience and keep your older fans happy by remaining accessible (And depthful) and bringing in new features (outside of gameplay) with each new iteration, properly adding onto an established formula, and straying from it with spin-offs. (I don’t think it’s terrible to branch off in that manner. Tends to be good for experimentation like this.) You don’t need to change gameplay to bring people into your main franchise as many have shown. Battlefield, CoD, Halo in its first 6 years, Gears of War, as well.
> >
> > Not to patronize, but there’s also a difference between adding clutter, and having simplicity which results in depth. Adding more things to the gameplay won’t always add “depth” as we see with Halo 5. It’ll add complexity, but that isn’t the same. And complexity leads to a lack of accessibility, meaning a lack of casual fans hooking into the game for the long term, because said casual fans won’t be able to properly access or understand a complex game. Then you look at CE. Arguably the most simple game with the deepest learning curve and amount of depth in what you’re able to do, BUT, casual fans don’t lose out on being able to learn and play the game, at a basic level, because this stuff isn’t made mandatory for play, but there for you to learn over time if you choose to. You can entirely play CE never once knowing how to quick camo, backpack reload, how to properly spawn teammates (And in turn also learn about random spawns), but that won’t detract from your experience.
> >
> > However… As I touched on before, if you want change and think it’s unarguably needed, then why not make a spin off so you don’t -Yoink!- or ward off your core audience? If you want a true compromise, rather than trying to cater to everyone in one game, which leads to no success and a lot of confusion, since catering to make a game for everyone means you effectively make a game for no one specifically, including your own, make a spin off with a specific style different than your main game, and let the fans determine its success or failure, rather than risking your main core franchise. Look at ODST or Halo Wars. Both were spin off games, were successful in their own ways and led to what people liked about them being brought back in other ways, such as Reach’s Firefight, or Halo Wars’ upcoming sequel. That didn’t impact the success of Halo 3 over its lifespan, nor Reach’s in the next, the latter was brought on by itself. I don’t get why the idea of a spin off game or series has been used so minimally in regards to Halo’s gameplay and testing new things, especially after the launches of Halo 4 and now, Halo 5.
> >
> > If you want an ability that’s treated like an RPG or MOBA game, rather than messing with Halo’s established and popular simple gameplay, make a Halo RPG/MOBA game. If people like it, you’ve got yourself another series to tap into. If they don’t, then meh. It’s a spin off. It shouldn’t lead to an impact towards your main games which remain untouched by that project (Assuming they’re successful, as per classic Halo), and you can treat it as an acceptable loss and move on.