Why load outs are objectively bad design

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Two assumptions need to be accepted before starting my argument.

First: The greater an impact a players input has on a game, the more fun the game will. An important distinction needs to be made here between addicting and fun. Gambling is addicting, and this addictive quality is why people continue to do it.

Second: If two weapons, weapon A and weapon B, function differently, there are two possible outcomes. One, weapon A and B are each better than each other in certain situations(rock,paper, scissors), or weapon A is always better(DMR pre-Turbo update).

When designing a loadout sandbox, the idea is to have weapon choice matter, and not be functional reskins. The only way to do this is to have weapons function differently. When weapons function differently we run into my second assumption and end up with rock paper scissors or one weapon that is superior to all other choices. Let us start with a basic rock, paper, scissor style balancing. Weapon A’s rounds travel 15 meters then disappear, while Weapon B’s round do not appear until they are 15m away from the barrel. Both weapons are one shot kill. With this type of balance if weapon A runs into weapon B outside of its effective range, Weapon will always lose irrespective of the player input of Weapon A. Which according to my first assumption means this game is less fun than it could be. Now lets us use a real example with Halo 4’s carbine and BR, two weapons which are relatively well balanced. According to my second assumption, either one weapon is always better or each are better in different situations. The situation in which the BR will always beat the carbine still exists even if it is rather rare. In this situation both players are equally skilled. If player A with a BR and player B with a carbine both round a corner with a sliver of shield and see each other simultaneously, player A with the BR will always win. The input of player B doesn’t matter at this point and goes against my first assumption. The rarer the situation becomes in which one weapon trumps another, the closer to being a reskin these weapons become.

The problem of balancing load out choices becomes even harder when you allow weapons with different intended ranges into the equation. Let us use the AR and the BR to illustrate this point. We can design the AR to always win up to a certain distance, and the BR to always win outside of that distance, but this is rock, paper, scissors design which trivializes player input. If we make their effective ranges equal one becomes a universally better weapon which defeats the purpose of a load out. If both weapons have the same kill time and same effective range, the AR becomes the better weapon because of a smaller difference between optimal and average kill times than the BRs average and optimal. If we make the BR have a faster kill time, the AR becomes a useless weapon. If we balance the weapons average kill times, the optimal kill time of a BR will always be higher that the optimal kill time of the AR, again making the BR universally better.

The more weapons that are added to the mix the harder it becomes to create infrequent occurrences of rock, paper, scissors, without making one weapon universally better.

If we want to go the route of rock, paper, scissors we need defined classes, if we want to stay a non-class shooter we need to have identical starts( or at least very infrequent occurrences of rock, paper, scissors).

2

It appears that you’re forgetting that despite the fact that each weapon is designed for a specific niche in mind (i.e. the Assault Rifle is ideal in CQC engagements), each weapon has its own way of potentially winning outside of its niche if used with enough skill.

For example: the Assault Rifle, despite being a CQC weapon, can be burst fired to improve accuracy and thus allowing it to work at mid-range.

Another example: the Battle Rifle may be a mid-range weapon, but its 2 bursts+melee=kill combo allows it to potentially defeat an AR at close range if the user has enough skill.

In short, you’re forgetting that a weapon’s niche is just its comfort-zone rather than its shackle. The weapon is easiest to use in its intended niche but with enough skill, it can work just as well outside of its niche - a skillgap.

If all weapons are given a way to function outside of their niche, then this “rock paper scissors” element you speak of will be eliminated.

3

> It appears that you’re forgetting that despite the fact that each weapon is designed for a specific niche in mind (i.e. the Assault Rifle is ideal in CQC engagements), each weapon has its own way of potentially winning outside of its niche if used with enough skill.
>
> For example: the Assault Rifle, despite being a CQC weapon, can be burst fired to improve accuracy and thus allowing it to work at mid-range.

Nope. The AR will lose a mid-range engagement to a BR/DMR every time (as long as the BR/DMR user is capable of aiming). So what’s the point of being useful at mid-range if you’re going to lose anyway?

I agree with the OP. Loadouts are a good idea, but are ultimately detrimental to gameplay.

4

Andy’s got the right idea. The goal needs to be to create a comfort zone for each weapon but make sure they’re not useless outside of that zone, so that things like team shooting and positioning are encouraged.

And don’t forget about secondary weapons adding another layer to make sure you aren’t limited to one range.

Halo 5 needs to add side arm automatics along with keeping the scoped magnum so that secondaries can work as compensation weapons.

If you’re using a weapon that’s bad at short range than you should pick an SMG in order to compensate for that weakness.

And regarding what you said about the BR and Carbine. Even if the BR has a slight advantage over the Carbine it’s so marginal I couldn’t care less. Like you said it’s a rare instance when it takes affect and I don’t expect everything to be perfect. People do use the Carbine and don’t have any trouble so I don’t see any problem.

5

You haven’t really explained why loadouts are objectively bad design.

> First: The greater an impact a players input has on a game, the more fun the game will be.

I can’t entirely agree or disagree with this.

People play board games for fun, and in those your input barely even matters due to all the random factors and random events.

> Second: If two weapons, weapon A and weapon B, function differently, there are two possible outcomes. One, weapon A and B are each better than each other in certain situations(rock,paper, scissors), or weapon A is always better(DMR pre-Turbo update).

WeaponA and WeaponB will always be better in differing situations simply because they are different weapons. I agree with this statement. Well actually I don’t entirely agree, but for the sake of simplicity, I agree.

Moving on, how do we define rock-paper-scissors? I will define it as “WeaponA will win unopposed in a specific situation over WeaponB, and vice-versa”. If you’ve ever played TF2, a Scout will -Yoink- on a Demoman in close range 95% of the time. I don’t feel that loadouts inherently do this. An AR will almost always beat a BR at close range, but a Carbine and a BR are more or less even. Referencing TF2 again, a Scout versus Soldier at close range is largely dependent on who has the best aim and can easily go both ways.

I will agree that loadouts inherently make it so that WeaponA will have an advantage over WeaponB in specific areas, but advantages alone do not mean you automatically win the battle. We aren’t robots playing, we are humans, and balance can’t just be determined from on-paper statistics.

Now, the real question. Should everyone be identical and fights be determined by out-shooting and out-maneuvering, or should positioning play a more significant role? Or in lay mans terms, should we have identical spawns or should we allow some variation in spawn traits via loadouts? Skill versus strategy? Should all games be arena based or class based? It’s an age old debate that predates even Halo CE really.

I don’t feel either way is “objectively flawed”. It comes down to what you as a player value most in the game. Bash class based shooters all you want, they do promote tons of planning, communication, and synchronization of roles, even if they do tend to lack in the shooting department.

Now obviously, most loadout games are plagued with obvious balance flaws, where one weapon is the best of all choices. But this doesn’t mean all loadout games will always have balance flaws.

6

> > It appears that you’re forgetting that despite the fact that each weapon is designed for a specific niche in mind (i.e. the Assault Rifle is ideal in CQC engagements), each weapon has its own way of potentially winning outside of its niche if used with enough skill.
> >
> > For example: the Assault Rifle, despite being a CQC weapon, can be burst fired to improve accuracy and thus allowing it to work at mid-range.
>
> Nope. The AR will lose a mid-range engagement to a BR/DMR every time (as long as the BR/DMR user is capable of aiming). So what’s the point of being useful at mid-range if you’re going to lose anyway?
>
> I agree with the OP. Loadouts are a good idea, but are ultimately detrimental to gameplay.

No it doesn’t the BR has the range of around 27m and the AR has the range of 24m , assuming that the ranges are both less than 24m and both of you have all the shots connect you will win 100% of the time . Of course thats assuming that around 20m is mid range combat.But no one gave the ranges that are considered mid range .

> WeaponA and WeaponB will always be better in differing situations simply because they are different weapons. I agree with this statement.
>
> Moving on, how do we define rock-paper-scissors? I will define it as “WeaponA will win unopposed in a specific situation over WeaponB, and vice-versa”. If you’ve ever played TF2, a Scout will Yoink! on a Demoman in close range 95% of the time. I don’t feel that loadouts inherently do this. An AR will almost always beat a BR at close range, but a Carbine and a BR are more or less even. Referencing TF2 again, a Scout versus Soldier at close range is largely dependent on who has the best aim and can easily go both ways.
>
> <mark>I will agree that loadouts inherently make it so that WeaponA will have an advantage over WeaponB in specific areas</mark>, but advantages alone do not mean you automatically win the battle. We aren’t robots playing, we are humans, and balance can’t just be determined from on-paper statistics.
>
> Now, the real question. Should everyone be identical and fights be determined by out-shooting and out-maneuvering, or should positioning play a more significant role? Or in lay mans terms, should we have identical spawns or should we allow some variation in spawn traits via loadouts? Skill versus strategy? Should all games be arena based or class based? It’s an age old debate that predates even Halo CE really.
>
> I don’t feel either way is “objectively flawed”. It comes down to what you as a player value most in the game. Bash class based shooters all you want, they do promote tons of planning, communication, and synchronization of roles, even if they do tend to lack in the shooting department.
>
> Now obviously, most loadout games are plagued with obvious balance flaws, where one weapon is the best of all choices. But this doesn’t mean all loadout games will always have balance flaws.

That doesn’t have much to do with loadout weapons that has to do with halo weapon design where the weapons are suppose to be good at certain situations. Example AR vs BR.

7

> That doesn’t have much to do with loadout weapons that has to do with halo weapon design where the weapons are suppose to be good at certain situations. Example AR vs BR.

Well no, it has to do with the concept of loadouts itself.

If a weapon has different stats, it’s going to be different. Otherwise it’s essentially a reskin.

The Carbine is better than the BR at extended range due to increased accuracy, while the BR is better at close range due to faster killtime and melee combo.

While these are subtle advantages/disadvantages compared to rock-paper-scissors, they are still advantages/disadvantages.

8

> > That doesn’t have much to do with loadout weapons that has to do with halo weapon design where the weapons are suppose to be good at certain situations. Example AR vs BR.
>
> Well no, it has to do with the concept of loadouts itself.
>
> If a weapon has different stats, it’s going to be different. Otherwise it’s essentially a reskin.
>
> The Carbine is better than the BR at extended range due to increased accuracy, while the BR is better at close range due to faster killtime and melee combo.
>
> While these are subtle advantages/disadvantages compared to rock-paper-scissors, they are still advantages/disadvantages.

Exactly how it was in halo 3 the two weapons have different stats just like in halo 4. And the same reason you gave the carbine that makes it different is the same across from halo 3 and 4.

9

>

I believe you’re missing my point.

Weapons can’t be different and still be identical. It’s a paradox.

So long as they have some difference, they will have advantages and disadvantages when compared to another. This is an inherent result of being different.

The only real differences between the BR and Carbine are rate of fire and damage per bullet with a slight difference in accuracy. Yet they have very distinct advantages and disadvantages because of these things.

10

> >
>
> I believe you’re missing my point.
>
> Weapons can’t be different and still be identical. It’s a paradox.
>
> So long as they have some difference, they will have advantages and disadvantages when compared to another.
>
> The only real differences between the BR and Carbine are rate of fire and damage per bullet with a slight difference in accuracy. Yet they have very distinct advantages and disadvantages because of these things.

Yes you are correct , but what I’m try clarify is that the differences between the BR and carbine was similar between halo 3 and halo 4 . You said in this post that “that loadouts inherently make it so that WeaponA will have an advantage over WeaponB in specific areas” I’m saying the advantages of weaponA(BR in this case) vs weapon B(Car) in specfic areas is similar across the two games . One had loadouts as its primary mechanic across most playlisst and the other never did had any lodouts to begin with. That seems more have to do with the weapons being different and designed that way then it does having to do with loadouts.

11
  1. I’m a -Yoink-.
  2. You’re right.
  3. Please don’t drag me into a semantics argument again. >_<
12

> It appears that you’re forgetting that despite the fact that each weapon is designed for a specific niche in mind (i.e. the Assault Rifle is ideal in CQC engagements), each weapon has its own way of potentially winning outside of its niche if used with enough skill.
>
> For example: the Assault Rifle, despite being a CQC weapon, can be burst fired to improve accuracy and thus allowing it to work at mid-range.
>
> Another example: the Battle Rifle may be a mid-range weapon, but its 2 bursts+melee=kill combo allows it to potentially defeat an AR at close range if the user has enough skill.
>
> In short, you’re forgetting that a weapon’s niche is just its comfort-zone rather than its shackle. The weapon is easiest to use in its intended niche but with enough skill, it can work just as well outside of its niche - a skillgap.
>
> If all weapons are given a way to function outside of their niche, then this “rock paper scissors” element you speak of will be eliminated.

At least that’s how it should be. To this day, our automatics in Halo are very much restricted. They can be burst fired, but if your opponent has a precision weapon, say BR, they need to have a really bad aim for you to have the time to get the necessary amount of shots at them.

But if we have weapons that can function fairly well outside of their niche, that’s all very much true. Mind you, there’s still an element of rock-paper-scissors solely because one weapon is still fundamentally better than the other at any specific range. But when you step outside of your weapon’s range, you’re expected to be aware of the potential disadvantage you put yourself to.

I wouldn’t mind loadouts if the only choice in them was the weapon choice. Having loadouts in the game doesn’t really benefit the game any way because the strategic choices are fairly obvious, but neither do they deteriorate it. In the end of the day, you are fundamentally better off by picking the precision weapon rather than the close range weapon.

13

> No it doesn’t the BR has the range of around 27m and the AR has the range of 24m , assuming that the ranges are both less than 24m and both of you have all the shots connect you will win 100% of the time . Of course thats assuming that around 20m is mid range combat.But no one gave the ranges that are considered mid range .

On Abandon, I would consider the distance between Ring 3 and the large tree on the hill to be about the end of close range and the beginning of mid-range. This is just outside of the AR’s effective range because the target is now smaller than the reticle/spread. Regardless of how skilled the AR user is, he’s going to miss shots and lose to an equally skilled BR user if they engage each other at the same time.

The point of loadouts is supposedly to give players more freedom in playstyle, but it actually restricts them. If I decide to use an AR, I now have to avoid and run away from mid- to long-range engagements until I find a close-range engagement. If I decide to use a BR, I have to avoid and run away from close-range and long-range engagements until I find a mid-range engagement. If I decide to use a DMR, I have to avoid and run away from close- to mid- range engagements until I find a long-range engagement. The pacing of the game becomes cat-and-mouse, with everyone running away from each other instead of towards each other.

If everyone has the same weapon, there is no reason to avoid any specific engagements because all other players are exactly as advantageous and disadvantageous as you are. Players won’t win or lose engagements because one of them happened to have a weapon more appropriate for the range; it will be sheer skill alone that determines victor and loser.

Functionally, loadouts are exactly like perks in that they give each player an advantage, and who wins an engagement is largely going to depend on whose advantage was more appropriate to the situation. It can be described exactly as “pick your buff.”

“But you have to make sure you don’t engage outside your weapon’s effective range!”

Exactly. You have to restrict yourself. If you have teammates in an large open area needing assistance but you chose an AR loadout, you’ll just have to stand by and watch as they die. If you choose a DMR and start heading out towards the enemy base and then hear that your flag’s been taken, you have to avoid going back into the base to stop the attack because they might have ARs. Instead of all players being equally advantageous and disadvantageous in every situation, you have this random factor of which of the three ranges are going to win in the next engagement. And since no one can know beforehand what every next engagement is going to be, how is it any different from rock-paper-scissors?

14

Third assumption: There is a difference between outperforming your opponent in a given situation and your opponent under performing in a given situation.

I would argue that out performing your opponent is more fun than your opponent under performing.

I will expand on this point later if it isn’t clear where I’m going with this, but I am running short on time.

15

> >
>
> Which part of the tree and on ring 3? Because it is still within the range of the AR , you can check it your self depending on where you are and some parts you can’t see the person near the tree if you’re on ring 3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/72139949@N05/8969600798/sizes/o/ .
>
>
> And how is that any different from halo 3 ? If I us a AR or smg(halo 2) don’t I have to run away if someone engages me from mid range? If I use the BR from halo 2/3 . the dmr from reach , or the pistol from CE don’t I have to run away from mid-range engagements( DMR) or close range ones( DMR,BR, pistol) .
>
> You are also forgetting the fact that I can choose another weapon from to compensate the fact that I have a mid range weapon like the automatics or the boltshot . Just like how it was in halo 3 with BR/AR starts or ce with AR/pistol starts or just by picking them up on the map. And also you don’t “run away” you try to get in close depending on how close you are , if you are like 30m away from a guy BRing you you either try to get in close using the obstructions on the map , use your pistol which has about the same range as the BR/Carbine , or run to cover. That how supposedly the halo weapons are ideally designed , in niche roles.
> Precision weapons are pretty much the go to weapon in pretty much of all halos games anyway you really don’t need to switch between other weapons . How often did you ever need to or see really good players ever switch to anything else between a BR to an automatic? Hardly.Automatics or close range weapons in halo are always relent on another mid to long range weapon that is the nearly the case on all halo games . The only reason I do in 4 is because I don’t like use one weapon all the time and fortunately the automatics don’t suck in halo 4 besides the suppressor.
>
> Your scenario works if the player doesn’t have the common sense enough to switch his/her weapon in halo 4 .

16

> And how is that any different from halo 3 ?

Pretty sure you answered that yourself:

> Precision weapons are pretty much the go to weapon in pretty much of all halos games anyway you really don’t need to switch between other weapons . How often did you ever need to or see really good players ever switch to anything else between a BR to an automatic? Hardly.Automatics or close range weapons in halo are always relent on another mid to long range weapon that is the nearly the case on all halo games . The only reason I do in 4 is because I don’t like use one weapon all the time and fortunately the automatics don’t suck in halo 4 besides the suppressor.

Yes, even though you started with an AR/Pistol in CE or BR/AR in Halo 3, you might as well have just started with only the pistol or only the BR, because no one ever switches to the automatic weapons.

In Halo 3, BR users consistently killed AR users even at close range. This is why I didn’t like the Team Slayer gametype: I didn’t like not having a viable weapon at spawn. The first thing I do when I spawn is grab a BR anyway, so why not just spawn with a BR to begin with?

> Your scenario works if the player doesn’t have the common sense enough to switch his/her weapon in halo 4 .

What do you mean that the scenario “works”? There’s nothing to “work.” I was only explaining why you should switch weapons in that scenario.

17

> > And how is that any different from halo 3 ?
>
> Pretty sure you answered that yourself:
>
>
>
> > Precision weapons are pretty much the go to weapon in pretty much of all halos games anyway you really don’t need to switch between other weapons . How often did you ever need to or see really good players ever switch to anything else between a BR to an automatic? Hardly.Automatics or close range weapons in halo are always relent on another mid to long range weapon that is the nearly the case on all halo games . The only reason I do in 4 is because I don’t like use one weapon all the time and fortunately the automatics don’t suck in halo 4 besides the suppressor.
>
> Yes, even though you started with an AR/Pistol in CE or BR/AR in Halo 3, you might as well have just started with only the pistol or only the BR, because no one ever switches to the automatic weapons.
>
> In Halo 3, BR users consistently killed AR users even at close range. This is why I didn’t like the Team Slayer gametype: I didn’t like not having a viable weapon at spawn. The first thing I do when I spawn is grab a BR anyway, so why not just spawn with a BR to begin with?
>
>
>
> > Your scenario works if the player doesn’t have the common sense enough to switch his/her weapon in halo 4 .
>
> What do you mean that the scenario “works”? There’s nothing to “work.” I was only explaining why you have to switch weapons in that scenario.

You was explaining why loadouts restricts yourself based on the the weapon you chosen. I asked if it was different from halo 3 where there aren’t any loadouts. The scenarios you gave out can be said if you apply to other halos. Then I answered that myself( it was more of me explaining why it was the same in halo 3) like I used an AR in halo 3 I would restrict myself. Anyway I was applying that it has nothing to do with loadouts but how the weapon philosophy is in the halo series because the weapons operate the same in all across halo basically. So it seems like it has more yo do with the weapon themselves not the loadouts.

Yes and I never liked Team slayer either , but isn’t the exactly same in halo 4 because the automatics doesn’t suck.

Yea and I was sayin that is why you use two weapons instead of one weapon. It seemed like that loadouts restricts you because you choose a weapon like the AR . But that is why you use the pistol that the game gives you or you use the firepower perk to give you a ranged weapon. The scenario I was referring to is the one you gave with the DMR and the AR.

18

So, can someone explain any potential problems with the concept of a pair of loadouts? That being, one loadout has a BR and the other has a CC?

The way I see it, there wouldn’t be any problems and players could choose the one they prefer, given that the weapons function appropriately. Say, the only differences are as follows: BR fires slower than CC, BR does more damage per shot than CC; CC fires faster than BR, CC does less damage per shot than BR. Really, you end up with the same optimal killtime for both weapons and they have the same range.

19

@Vektor0

When you say that your forced into using certain weapons can be taken in several ways. I will and should alter my play style to my weapon choice instead of being restricted to one doctrine, one strategy, one style with spawning with the same weapon.

Also it leads to players being seen as bad players by forcing them to spawn with the same weapon. For example I cant use the BR as well as most of my friends but I can use the CC, AR, SR, LR, etc. a lot better than they can. Why should I get forced into a certain playstyle which does in fact offer less restrictions and be labelled as a less skilful player just because I dont do as well with one weapon compared to others which are of an equal weapon tier.

20

> > It appears that you’re forgetting that despite the fact that each weapon is designed for a specific niche in mind (i.e. the Assault Rifle is ideal in CQC engagements), each weapon has its own way of potentially winning outside of its niche if used with enough skill.
> >
> > For example: the Assault Rifle, despite being a CQC weapon, can be burst fired to improve accuracy and thus allowing it to work at mid-range.
>
> Nope. The AR will lose a mid-range engagement to a BR/DMR every time (as long as the BR/DMR user is capable of aiming). So what’s the point of being useful at mid-range if you’re going to lose anyway?
>
> I agree with the OP. Loadouts are a good idea, but are ultimately detrimental to gameplay.

I don’t know what you consider mid-range. But I consider it generally between side ramps, and the jump-over to mid on Haven. And the AR can easily take on a BR or DMR at that range with appropriately timed bursts. Heck, I’ve even spent time firing controlled bursts from the top perches of Solace and scored several kills. That baby has good range.

If you disagree with me, it’s because you’re just not as good as I am with it. Not that it’s “incapable” but rather that you’re incapable of doing it. I.E. the problem is you, not the gun.