The "Variety" Argument

Games Other Halo
1

It’s a common happening for uninformed players to make the argument that a skill-based utilitarian weapon removes variety from the game. In reality, without this type of weapon the game would become stagnant and come down to a rock-paper-scissors level of play which is random by definition.

There are more variables coming into play in any BR/DMR battle than in an individual between two other “variety” weapons such as the AR, plasma weapons, etc. In the utilitarian individual: strafing, positioning, location of hit, as well as variety of ranges come into play. With a “variety” weapon the best way to play it is always the same: spray/pray and go in for the beatdown.

This difference in variables between utilitarian and “variety” niche weapons is why the “variety” weapons are actually less dynamic and more stagnant than a game centered around a single weapon. I’m hoping to see something similar to the no-bloom DMR with a quicker kill time be the starting weapon for Halo 4 in order to promote a large skill gap and punish those who make bad map movement decisions.

2

I’m hoping to see a few playlists designed specially for people like you, and the rest of the game for people who actually play for mindless fun, rather than competition.

3

I have to agree with Lehnaru’s statement. I will add these points of my own, however:

  1. “Variety” weapon is not synonymous with “spray and pray” weapon;
  2. To imply that considerations of strafing, range, positioning, and location of hit play no part in the use of, say, a plasma pistol, a plasma rifle, or an assault rifle, is, I feel, very incorrect.

At the end of the day, I would much rather participate in a match in which 12 players are wielding 12 different weapons, than in a match that is defined by the use of a single gun.

4

> I’m hoping to see a few playlists designed specially for people like you, and the rest of the game for people who actually play for mindless fun, rather than competition.

Or we can have a universal setting in which everything works for casual and competitive players.

But oh no lets have a billion different settings right? /sarcasm.

5

> I’m hoping to see a few playlists designed specially for people like you, and the rest of the game for people who actually play for mindless fun, rather than competition.

Why? The majority of players who play a few months after release date are competitive. Casuals will pick up the game and put it on the shelf when the new CoD comes out.

Also competition is fun, so don’t be ignorant.

> I have to agree with Lehnaru’s statement. I will add these points of my own, however:
>
> 1. “Variety” weapon is not synonymous with “spray and pray” weapon;
> 2. To imply that considerations of strafing, range, positioning, and location of hit play no part in the use of, say, a plasma pistol, a plasma rifle, or an assault rifle, is, I feel, very incorrect.
>
> At the end of the day, I would much rather participate in a match in which 12 players are wielding 12 different weapons, than in a match that is defined by the use of a single gun.

  1. All the weapons people push for in terms of variety are reskinned spray and pray weapons.
  2. When used to their full potential all these weapons have the same purpose. Get into beatdown range while spray/pray to drain their shields. There’s absolutely no variety whatsoever.
  3. If 12 people are using 12 different weapons then the game is random by definition. The skill-gap goes down the toilet and the game dies out after a few months.
6

> > I’m hoping to see a few playlists designed specially for people like you, and the rest of the game for people who actually play for mindless fun, rather than competition.
>
> Or we can have a universal setting in which everything works for casual and competitive players.
>
> But oh no lets have a billion different settings right? /sarcasm.

Both NBA pros and 6 year olds can play on a 10ft rim but only 6 year olds can play on a 5 ft rim.

Make the game competitive out of the box so it is playable for everybody. If you want to dumb it down to grifball or action sack you have custom games and niche playlists.

7

> 3) If 12 people are using 12 different weapons then the game is random by definition. The skill-gap goes down the toilet and the game dies out after a few months.

I don’t think (and I recognise the irony in this sentence as I write it) that you understand the definition of the word “definition”.

Everyone here likes to talk about the “skill” difference between good and so-called bad players. Do you know how I would measure that difference? A “good” player should be able to defeat a “bad” player with an inferior weapon. A “good” player should be able to adapt to any situation and any weapon that he or she is presented with. A “good” player should rely more on his or her understanding of the game’s fundamentals than on the power of a weapon. If you can’t do those things, then you likely aren’t a good player (and I’m using “you” here in the general sense, so please don’t take personal offence at the statement) .

8

> > 3) If 12 people are using 12 different weapons then the game is random by definition. The skill-gap goes down the toilet and the game dies out after a few months.
>
> I don’t think (and I recognise the irony in this sentence as I write it) that you understand the definition of the word “definition”.
>
> Everyone here likes to talk about the “skill” difference between good and so-called bad players. Do you know how I would measure that difference? A “good” player should be able to defeat a “bad” player with an inferior weapon. A “good” player should be able to adapt to any situation and any weapon that he or she is presented with. A “good” player should rely more on his or her understanding of the game’s fundamentals than on the power of a weapon. If you can’t do those things, then you likely aren’t a good player (and I’m using “you” here in the general sense, so please don’t take personal offence at the statement) .

If weapon A beats weapon B and neither player is limited than the player with weapon A will win every time. You play at a very low level where people make awful mistakes so you don’t see the problem with your scenario. Rock-paper-scissors gameplay is random by definition and it has no place in Halo.

The utilitarian weapon when used to close to its full potential needs to be able to outplay all non-power weapons in their respective niches to keep the game balanced.

9

> You play at a very low level where people make awful mistakes so you don’t see the problem with your scenario.

This is not only an assumption but a very rude one.

I find it odd that you think the only difference between two players is their weapon choice. There are an infinite number of variables that go into each and every multiplayer fight, and since I know you’re going to refute this point in a few minute’s time, I’ll provide examples:

  1. Good players will know when to stop running and hide behind a corner so as to ambush their pursuer
  2. Good players will make judicious use of their grenades
  3. Good players will know when–and when not–to crouch, jump, run, walk, etc.
  4. Good players will have steadier hands and therefore better aim, regardless of the weapon they are using
  5. Good players will use environmental hazards (e.g. fusion coils, mines, cliff edges) to their advantage
  6. Good players will know when to retreat and when to engage
  7. Good players will work co-operatively with their teammates (at least in an ideal world)
  8. Good players will use vehicles to their full advantage

As you can see, there should be a lot more than just “weapon choice” contributing to the gap between a good player and a bad player.

10

> > You play at a very low level where people make awful mistakes so you don’t see the problem with your scenario.
>
> This is not only an assumption but a very rude one.
>
> I find it odd that you think the only difference between two players is their weapon choice. There are an infinite number of variables that go into each and every multiplayer fight, and since I know you’re going to refute this point in a few minute’s time, I’ll provide examples:
>
> 1. Good players will know when to stop running and hide behind a corner so as to ambush their pursuer
> 2. Good players will make judicious use of their grenades
> 3. Good players will know when–and when not–to crouch, jump, run, walk, etc.
> 4. Good players will have steadier hands and therefore better aim, regardless of the weapon they are using
> 5. Good players will use environmental hazards (e.g. fusion coils, mines, cliff edges) to their advantage
> 6. Good players will know when to retreat and when to engage
> 7. Good players will work co-operatively with their teammates (at least in an ideal world)
> 8. Good players will use vehicles to their full advantage
>
> As you can see, there should be a lot more than just “weapon choice” contributing to the gap between a good player and a bad player.

This is very true.
A good player knows when he can get an advantage with his weapon.
When I know the enemy has sword on Countdown, I will keep my distance while using the DMR or wait until I can get my hands on shotgun.
And heck if the enemy is indeed less skilled it’s easy for the more skilled player to beat him with inferior weapons.

E.g. enemy has shotgun you have a pistol, you manage to beat him in CQC because he is incapable of adjusting fast enough to your strafing. A tactic he does not know.
And the Reach MM system is terrible doesn’t matter how good you are, you can still get noobs.

11

> When I know the enemy has sword on Countdown, I will keep my distance while using the DMR or wait until I can get my hands on shotgun.
> And heck if the enemy is indeed less skilled it’s easy for the more skilled player to beat him with inferior weapons.

This is exactly what I was talking about. This is how I would measure a player’s skill level, not by his or her ability to consistently outperform others with the same weapon on the same maps in the same game type. All that adds up to is a player who is good in a very, very specific context.

12

I take great offense OP that you would say us Halo casual players put halo up after the next cod game i played halo from the beginning and i hate how the community has change to this forced gameplay and you suggest more of this on the people that play halo for its true reason… to just have fun and not care. also all weapons are rock paper scissors in Halo thats how its played. PP and magnum arent equal it works for certain situations FR and RL, SMG AR PR. all the weapons work in a circle and its what makes it interesting and its how you play that makes your gun effective. SR should be long range not CQC fighting. you use it the effective way and you get how they work. the formula for Halo from Halo 1 should never be messed with. why fix something that isnt broken instead of making guns exactly the same they have to have diversity when it comes to different weapons and the power weapons you dont spawn with and instead need to find on the map.

13

> > You play at a very low level where people make awful mistakes so you don’t see the problem with your scenario.
>
> This is not only an assumption but a very rude one.

Judging from what I’ve heard about Costa, he didn’t intend for it to be rude. Apparently, he actually is massively skilled at the game, so it follows that an average level is, relative to his, very low.

> As you can see, there should be a lot more than just “weapon choice” contributing to the gap between a good player and a bad player.

This is a valid point. But when discussing weapons specifically and exclusively, does it not make sense it ignore factors not related to weapons? Neither the inclusion nor the exclusion of such factors would necessarily invalidate an argument, I think.

> If weapon A beats weapon B and neither player is limited than the player with weapon A will win every time.

But A might not be superior to B in every situation, and if it’s easy to change the situation, then the result could be an interesting back-and-forth as the two players battle, no?

If A is better at range (say, a railgun whose projectile speeds and becomes more damaging with distance) and B is better close-up, then one might think that the combat ranges at the start of a battle determine the outcome – if I’m holding A and I see a guy with B from a distance, the B guy is screwed, right? But if there’s enough cover, B could easily approach me while avoiding death. And so it becomes a back and forth, as we struggle to maintain our respective optimal combat ranges while trying to land shots on each other when we get close to the ranges we need. (Admittedly, this example – navigating cover, moving while still maintaining aim – would be easier to imagine and would work better in a 3PS than in an FPS, but I think it still demonstrates my point: make the circumstances highly mutable, and rock-paper-scissors can be avoided, I think.)

The trick is kill times. A lot of people argue against long kill times and say that they’re inherently bad. Not necessarily, I think. The only thing long kill times really do is increase the amount of time one spends in combat (as opposed to traversing the map). If kill times are very short, then yeah, the ranges at the start of combat are the only ranges that matter and things do become rock-paper-scissors. But if kill times are a bit longer – not annoyingly so, but still, longer – then that back-and-forth from above comes into play, no?

(Forgive me if I sound nonsensical. I am tired.)

14

> Judging from what I’ve heard about Costa, he didn’t intend for it to be rude. Apparently, he actually is massively skilled at the game, so it follows that an average level is, relative to his, very low.

You’re again inferring that I play at an “average level”. You may know Costa’s level of proficiency, but you don’t know mine. If you’ll note, my forum account isn’t attached to an Xbox Live account. And I fail utterly to see how his remark can be construed as anything but smugly presumptive. I was unaware that players above a certain skill level were automatically allowed to assume that all other players were inferior to themselves. In fact, a player’s ability should be inversely proportional to his or her sense of modesty; upon reaching the pinnacle of aptitude, one should reflect back on the many instances of good fortune that have allowed one to achieve that level of aptitude. If Costa is lucky enough to have had the time, the opportunity, and the physical and mental capacity to achieve greatness, then he should be humbled by that greatness, and should never laud it over other players. Nor should he ever assume that there exists no one above him, because there always will.

15

> Your’e again inferring that I play at an “average level”. You may know Costa’s level of proficiency, but you don’t know mine. If you’ll note, my forum account isn’t attached to an Xbox Live account.

Apologies, then. Most people are average, so I j-- Wait, “most people are average”? Did I really actually point that out like that’s some novel idea?

I need sleep. Again, I apologize for making assumptions without data. And you do make a good point about respect.

16

DavidJCobb, I’m just happy to read a properly punctuated, grammatically correct post. I shudder to think how coherent your posts are when you’re well rested.

17

I completely disagree with the OP.

Variety is not added if there is no super dominant weapon, it is just not lost.

Most people don’t want to play MLG, or want to play MLG LOCKOUT SNIPERZ BRS 24/7.

Most people are playing just for the sake of enjoyment, not competition. (Not implying that you can’t have fun competitively)

Halo CE did nothing for competitive players, it is a completely casual game, over powered grenades, no ranking system, random weapons.

It was still great.

18

> I completely disagree with the OP.
>
> Variety is not added if there is no super dominant weapon, it is just not lost.
>
> Most people don’t want to play MLG, or want to play MLG LOCKOUT SNIPERZ BRS 24/7.
>
> Most people are playing just for the sake of enjoyment, not competition. (Not implying that you can’t have fun competitively)
>
> Halo CE did nothing for competitive players, it is a completely casual game, over powered grenades, no ranking system, random weapons.
>
> It was still great.

that’s what halo is missing as i said above in my post.

I disagree with your post about CE not being competitive.
Halo CE could be enjoyed both casualty and on a super competitive level

We all played the same settings and all.

That’s why “Reach” is in a big mess(another topic for the reach forum )
Too many settings

If we could have everyone on the same page again, there would be less b.s to go though.

in my opinion of course.

19

> in my opinion of course.

God, I love those words. I think I’ve been exposed to so much hotheadedness on this forum that I’ve come close to worshipping anyone who acknowledges variance of opinion and refrains from attempting to pass off their own as gospel.

I just had to say that. Carry on.

20

> > in my opinion of course.
>
> God, I love those words. I think I’ve been exposed to so much hotheadedness on this forum that I’ve come close to worshipping anyone who acknowledges variance of opinion and refrains from attempting to pass off their own as gospel.
>
> I just had to say that. Carry on.

Yeah,

I’m Actually known to be very hostile to people on this forum (Pretty sad) :l

I’m getting tired of being banned lmao