You know if we can’t upgrade weapons, how much ammo the weapon holds how much extra ammo we can carry Master Chief, and vehicles then there’s not much point in having an upgrade system in the game at all
why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> 2533274840624875;2:
> why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
>
> Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
I agree and from what I have heard there will be weapon variants and possible weapon attachments we can find such as scopes suppressors etc. not sure what this means for upgrades but myself being a big rpg fan action and traditional would love to be able to level up chief with skills and perks like run speed jump height even gun accuracy melee power and speed vehicle competency etc. other upgrades being like to unlock thrusters n unlock the grappling hook. then upgrade there usefulness as well. but one can dream
I think the campaign will allow for weapon upgrades. It would be a nice way to implement some of the H5 variants into the sandbox. I don’t believe this will transfer over into MP as well it shouldn’t. If it did everyone will be screaming CoD at each other and the usual ramblings.
> 2533274812002202;3:
> > 2533274840624875;2:
> > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> >
> > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
>
> I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
> 2533274812002202;3:
> > 2533274840624875;2:
> > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> >
> > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
>
> I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
Finally some one that agrees with me
> 2670661386182421;6:
> > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > >
> > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> >
> > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
>
> There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
>
> However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
>
> It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
If that is the case then why do humans thy to make all in one tools or weapons now
> 2533274845153375;8:
> > 2670661386182421;6:
> > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > >
> > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> >
> > There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
> >
> > However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
> >
> > It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
>
> If that is the case then why do humans thy to make all in one tools or weapons now
Because gameplay design and mechanics don’t factor in that much for real life.
> 2670661386182421;6:
> > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > >
> > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> >
> > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
>
> There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
>
> However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
>
> It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
oh and another thing we need to be able to upgrade our ammo because it sucks in campaign now running out of ammo is not fun it’s annoying
> 2533274845153375;10:
> > 2670661386182421;6:
> > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > >
> > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> >
> > There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
> >
> > However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
> >
> > It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
>
> oh and another thing we need to be able to upgrade our ammo because it sucks in campaign now running out of ammo is not fun it’s annoying
Some games have definitely sucked in this regard. I recall 4 being particularly bad about it. CE however gave you an extra 600 AR rounds to carry around. I know you’re tired of balance arguments but it’s important here. Finding that Goldilocks spot for ammo counts needs to make the weapon viable without giving it so much that players can just lug a rocket launcher around for the entire level.
If that’s what you want though, just unlimited ammo for your favorite gun, you can always just turn on the bandanna skull.
343 already thought about the concept of being able to upgrade and modify weapons and after trying it out and testing it they found that it didn’t take very long to completely change the way weapons are used in the game and change the core gameplay and they decided it was not something they are going to do. I don’t really want to be able to modify weapons in Halo. I am all for being able to carry a few extra mags of ammunition for whatever I am using though and some settings on what grenades to carry/pick up and have a maximum total carry limits on grenades than being able to carry 2 or 4 of each type no matter how many variations there are. However with the exception of CE’s very high ammunition counts the limited ammunition you can carry is meant to encourage players to swap weapons to whatever is available and learn how to use most of the sandbox to their advantage instead of mostly just keeping the starter weapons the most of the time.
> 2670661386182421;11:
> > 2533274845153375;10:
> > > 2670661386182421;6:
> > > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> > >
> > > There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
> > >
> > > However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
> > >
> > > It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
> >
> > oh and another thing we need to be able to upgrade our ammo because it sucks in campaign now running out of ammo is not fun it’s annoying
>
> Some games have definitely sucked in this regard. I recall 4 being particularly bad about it. CE however gave you an extra 600 AR rounds to carry around. I know you’re tired of balance arguments but it’s important here. Finding that Goldilocks spot for ammo counts needs to make the weapon viable without giving it so much that players can just lug a rocket launcher around for the entire level.
>
> If that’s what you want though, just unlimited ammo for your favorite gun, you can always just turn on the bandanna skull.
I think a good.goldilocks zone would be
Halo 3 level ammo what do you think
> 2533274812002202;3:
> > 2533274840624875;2:
> > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> >
> > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
>
> I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
> 2670661386182421;6:
> > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > 2533274840624875;14:
> > > > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> > > >
> > > > then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
> > > >
> > > > Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
>
> There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
>
> However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
>
> It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
> 2533274840624875;14:
> > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > >
> > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> >
> > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
>
> then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
>
> Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
Spartan Blue: There is no world in which upgrades for the shotgun will make it useful against sniper jackals. You’ll still need to pick the right tool for the job, you just get to hone your tool to make it more like the way you use it.
Porcin3 Proph3t: I don’t think your examples make much sense. An upgrade for a 32 round AR mag might be a 50 round mag. That still doesn’t make it a SAW. Upgrades wouldn’t be unique to one weapon, they would equally boost all the weapons and let players hone their weapons to better fit the role they like to play… just like the Spartans do in the canon.
This has been my favorite series for 20 years, I’m allowed to want to see new and interesting things. It seems pretty silly to be telling me that the core identity of halo games can’t change when we’re discussing a game that will fundamentally change the core identity of Halo games.
> 2533274812002202;15:
> > 2670661386182421;6:
> > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > 2533274840624875;14:
> > > > > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> > > > >
> > > > > then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
> >
> > There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
> >
> > However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
> >
> > It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
>
>
>
> > 2533274840624875;14:
> > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > >
> > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> >
> > then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
> >
> > Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
>
> Spartan Blue: There is no world in which upgrades for the shotgun will make it useful against sniper jackals. You’ll still need to pick the right tool for the job, you just get to hone your tool to make it more like the way you use it.
>
> Porcin3 Proph3t: I don’t think your examples make much sense. An upgrade for a 32 round AR mag might be a 50 round mag. That still doesn’t make it a SAW. Upgrades wouldn’t be unique to one weapon, they would equally boost all the weapons and let players hone their weapons to better fit the role they like to play… just like the Spartans do in the canon.
>
> This has been my favorite series for 20 years, I’m allowed to want to see new and interesting things. It seems pretty silly to be telling me that the core identity of halo games can’t change when we’re discussing a game that will fundamentally change the core identity of Halo games.
I definitely agree that we should not be gatekeeping new ideas just because we think that some how makes the new games “less halo”. I am cautious about an upgrade system but don think it should be dismissed outright. There are many games I love with upgrade systems and I think you make a great point about how it easily ties into cannon.
I think we’ll be able to use the upgrades to tailor the game towards a more classic or modern feel.
Like what if you could take an upgrade that increases the chiefs base movement speed by 20% all the time at the cost of the ability to sprint.
Or you could upgrade your visor to enable Smart Link on all weapons but you have Red Reticule Range drop of some % when not scoped in.
Upgrade choices that move your traits closer to the original trilogy or the modern games would give everyone a chance to play with mechanics they enjoy during the campaign.
We don’t even know what the upgrade system is though
> 2533274841519598;16:
> > 2533274812002202;15:
> > > 2670661386182421;6:
> > > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > > 2533274840624875;14:
> > > > > > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > > > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
> > >
> > > There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
> > >
> > > However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
> > >
> > > It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274840624875;14:
> > > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> > >
> > > then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
> > >
> > > Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
> >
> > Spartan Blue: There is no world in which upgrades for the shotgun will make it useful against sniper jackals. You’ll still need to pick the right tool for the job, you just get to hone your tool to make it more like the way you use it.
> >
> > Porcin3 Proph3t: I don’t think your examples make much sense. An upgrade for a 32 round AR mag might be a 50 round mag. That still doesn’t make it a SAW. Upgrades wouldn’t be unique to one weapon, they would equally boost all the weapons and let players hone their weapons to better fit the role they like to play… just like the Spartans do in the canon.
> >
> > This has been my favorite series for 20 years, I’m allowed to want to see new and interesting things. It seems pretty silly to be telling me that the core identity of halo games can’t change when we’re discussing a game that will fundamentally change the core identity of Halo games.
>
> I definitely agree that we should not be gatekeeping new ideas just because we think that some how makes the new games “less halo”. I am cautious about an upgrade system but don think it should be dismissed outright. There are many games I love with upgrade systems and I think you make a great point about how it easily ties into cannon.
Thank you, I personally am also skeptical of an upgrade system, but curious. I think that with this move into a more open-world game, more customization and progression would help keep me engaged. That said, I don’t think the progression necessarily needs to be weapon or armor upgrades, I would happily play through the campaign again and again if my progress against the banished is clearly visible. I want to rescue marines then have those same people show up in a pelican later when I need a lift. I want to salvage equipment and reinforce UNSC bases, and interact closely with a new Marine or ODST character reminiscent of Mckayy or Silvia from Halo: The Flood. I do think that adding other “upgrades” could help me enjoy the progression of the game, but in some ways at this point I would really just like to see a separate Halo game that embraces an open world and RPG elements.
> 2533274812002202;15:
> > 2670661386182421;6:
> > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > 2533274840624875;14:
> > > > > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> > > > >
> > > > > then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
> >
> > There’s nothing wrong with that opinion but you have to consider the other side as well. Some people enjoy not being able to upgrade weapons because it makes you think more critically about which 2 you carry. If you have one gun that’s extremely decked out and an absolute beast, of course you’re going to use that whenever you can.
> >
> > However, if guns can’t be upgraded then you have to consider the difficulty and enemies you’ll be fighting. For example, I’m going to want a shotgun for use against flood but definitely not against sniper jackals. I also would probably want a plasma pistol fighting elites on legendary but can take it or leave it on easy or normal. If I have an AR that’s completely upgraded, chances are I’m just always going to grab that.
> >
> > It basically boils down to making an all-in-one tool versus choosing the right ones for the job.
>
>
>
> > 2533274840624875;14:
> > > 2533274812002202;3:
> > > > 2533274840624875;2:
> > > > why not consider upgrades to be focused on equipment? So, increase how many times you can throw a drop wall, or an upgrade allows you to shoot through it. There won’t be 2 shield pieces of equipment given the redundancy it creates so upgrades there makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Halo is a sandbox, upgrading weapons makes other weapons nullified, same with vehicles. Those should all always just have variances present in the world. Weapons will intrinsically have redundancies. But those redundancies will have some form of variance to them. If I upgrade an Commando, why would I sue that over an AR. But what if I find an AR weapon variant with a scope or one with a bigger mag (basic examples, not a fan of either with an AR). Then you need to make an active choice. It makes it a bit more interesting with the sandbox
> > >
> > > I disagree with this idea. I’m a little tired personally over the obsession over sandbox and balance. Sometimes, upgrading weapons just makes them better and maybe thats ok? Everyone seems to be very concerned about keeping everything equally useful but that just isn’t how halo has ever been. Particularly in the campaign, I’ll always drop a plasma pistol for a BR or anything really. It’s totally reasonable for some weapons to be more useful than others. If every weapon in the campaign is upgradable, the player can choose which weapon to focus on and upgrade. You’re playing as a super soldier fighting aliens in bulletproof armor… sometimes you should feel OP.
> >
> > then play a different series. You dont change a games core identity to fit your want. You move to a game that does fulfill it.
> >
> > Having everything equally useful is not the focus. Making it so you openly use all weapons is depending on the situation. If I can upgrade my AR to have a bigger mag or tighter spread, why also carry the commando or a saw? All are useful and some are better then the other. They dont need to be equally useful, just viable. Upgrading weapons makes weapons more viable than others. Thats the issue
>
> Spartan Blue: There is no world in which upgrades for the shotgun will make it useful against sniper jackals. You’ll still need to pick the right tool for the job, you just get to hone your tool to make it more like the way you use it.
What if an upgrade changed the ammo type to a slug so it was more effective at range? Mix that with a sight upgrade and it could become feasible.
Even so, let’s say that was just a bad example I used. I think you can still understand the point I was making with it. I’m not against people having the opinion of wanting weapon upgrades, I’m just laying out my reasons for being against the system itself.