Weapons/Sandbox Tuning as a Player Feature

Community General Discussion
1

First-Person Shooters struggle in regards to finding a good balance to their respective sandboxes as these changes are implemented by the developers and their publishers.
You will always find people upset about something not feeling right - so why not provide users with the tools to modify these aspects themselves?
The downside to this would likely be that one man’s favourite dish can be another man’s worst nightmare in that adapting to changes between bouts on varying maps can be quite jarring. On the flip-side, you’re providing players just the right tools they need to customize the game to an experience that they desire most rather than being forced to work with the changes made to base game-play in the form of tuning updates and having to update or completely overhaul all of their previous content to match up with the ‘new’ updates. Players have been adapting to different sandboxes in Halo since Combat Evolved which started out with only a handful of tools the player had access to.
Having what’s available now in the form of all these various weapons would be great if only players could give each of them a designated role or usage that separates each from the rest.

Not only could you settle for providing basic tuning settings to players, but settings could go advanced and have far more creative uses;
Set weapons that slow down player movement, (re)charge their health/shields instead of harming them, increase movement speed and other player attributes. Set vehicles handling, acceleration and top speed. This is just the tip of the iceberg of things you could do by adding functionality not to the player but to the sandbox. Have players be your own testers and developers and see what works, see what sticks and see what’s fun.

2

What you described is essentially the REQ system.

3

If everyone makes their own sandbox then how would multiplayer matchmaking work?

4

> 2533274824050480;2:
> What you described is essentially the REQ system.

The REQ system provides various presets of different weapons - of which each are still defined by whatever changes are made through the tuning updates.

> 2533274817408735;3:
> If everyone makes their own sandbox then how would multiplayer matchmaking work?

Multiplayer matchmaking would work with what 343i defines as it’s base game-play.
If they wanted to, they could arrange an agreement with the community to have a playlist or two available; slayer and/or objective game-types - to test the waters of community-made tuning changes. If 343i finds that the changes prove to be effective, then the data can be carried for further use should they be looking forward to developing further testing grounds for current or future titles.

5

I think something like this would make the core gameplay as a whole a big, inconsistent mess. Allowing the playerbase to constantly changing the mechanics and flow would be aggravating for most and even if it were a thing, 343 has the final say on what should and shouldn’t change. I’m saying no.

6

Having this for custom games could be fun - like the current weapon pad trick in Halo 5, but fully supported to be able to change traits. Could make some cool customs with stuff like that.

7

> 2533274798121887;4:
> Multiplayer matchmaking would work with what 343i defines as it’s base game-play.
> If they wanted to, they could arrange an agreement with the community to have a playlist or two available; slayer and/or objective game-types - to test the waters of community-made tuning changes. If 343i finds that the changes prove to be effective, then the data can be carried for further use should they be looking forward to developing further testing grounds for current or future titles.

That doesn’t really answer my question. Let’s say they make 1 playlist, as you suggeted, for testing different player-made sandboxes. If every player makes their own sandbox, then who’s get’s used for testing in the playlist in the matchmaking? You can’t have different sandboxes for each player within a match; that would never work and hardly be fair. Weapons must work the same for each player within a match. So if Player A makes Sandbox A and Player B makes Sandbox B (etc. etc.), then when they match in your proposed playlist, whose sandbox gets used?

8

> 2535429593088083;5:
> I think something like this would make the core gameplay as a whole a big, inconsistent mess. Allowing the playerbase to constantly changing the mechanics and flow would be aggravating for most and even if it were a thing, 343 has the final say on what should and shouldn’t change. I’m saying no.

The same line of thinking could be applied to any other aspect left under the control of player customization; be it forge or custom gametypes.

> 2533274817408735;7:
> > 2533274798121887;4:
> > Multiplayer matchmaking would work with what 343i defines as it’s base game-play.
> > If they wanted to, they could arrange an agreement with the community to have a playlist or two available; slayer and/or objective game-types - to test the waters of community-made tuning changes. If 343i finds that the changes prove to be effective, then the data can be carried for further use should they be looking forward to developing further testing grounds for current or future titles.
>
> That doesn’t really answer my question. Let’s say they make 1 playlist, as you suggeted, for testing different player-made sandboxes. If every player makes their own sandbox, then who’s get’s used for testing in the playlist in the matchmaking? You can’t have different sandboxes for each player within a match; that would never work and hardly be fair. Weapons must work the same for each player within a match. So if Player A makes Sandbox A and Player B makes Sandbox B (etc. etc.), then when they match in your proposed playlist, whose sandbox gets used?

The sandbox tuning settings would not be applied to individual players within a shared instance, but will work as an accessible preset along the lines of Custom Games alongside maps and gametypes.

Set colours (green for the map developer, blue for popular and red for untested) on Map Variants, Gametypes and Sandbox Tuning Settings - provide players with an idea of what the developer of the map approves directly on, what works favourably from a community decision perspective and what one person decides would make for a jolly outing.

For some examples; GGB - A map and custom game type agreed upon by the developer of said map, but the variation to the sandbox settings by a different party are considered favourably by many as a good alternative.
GBR - A map by the maker, a popular gametype developed by a different party that isn’t affiliated with the map maker and then another party with sandbox tuning settings of their own that hasn’t been fully rated with the matchup of both the map and the gametype.
It forms a hierarchy leading with the map developer having the most say, followed by the maker of the gametype and then it comes down to the sandbox tuner should there need to be one.

Give developers of these the option to package them together; map, gametype and sandbox with their ratings (GGB/GBG/GBB/GRR/GBR/GGG) so that when a player locates any one file they are given the choice to browse through affiliated/linked files bundled with it and listed by priority or player’s choice.