Jump to content
TheSimms

Halo 5: Guardians eSports/Arena Weapon Starts Poll

Arena Starting Weapons (constructive post gamescom thread)  

850 members have voted

  1. 1. Exports/Arena Starting Weapon Choices

    • Pistol + AR
    • Pistol + AR (AR nerfed)
    • Pistol + AR (Pistol patched to 4SK)
    • BR + Pistol
    • BR only
    • BR + AR
    • BR + AR (AR nerfed)
    • DMR Only / With AR (Is it viable over any of the above?)
    • Pistol Only


Recommended Posts

I agree with your first point.

 

As far as the perception and interpretation of randomness through an expanded sandbox, I think it's a bit overstated and don't really see it as a problem in modern esports. Understanding balance and more specifically deficit creates its own dynamic of tension in audience expectation. LoL, Dota, CS, SC2, SF4, Quake and so on all work with instances of apparent deficit whereby entertainment is derived in the audience knowing what should happen and then either proven right or surprised which is the money shot e.g. even if you don't play CS or even FPS in general you know that this should not happen, which makes it all the more entertaining when it does. It is an extreme example to compare to DMR vs pistol engagements which within a certain range are negligible in terms of deficit, but the potential for overturning expectation and thus entertainment is still there.

 

The fact that the DMR and pistol are "within a certain range ... negligible in terms of deficit" means to me that only one should be present on the map. Weapon and item placement around the map should exist to dictate map flow. A DMR or BR on the map doesn't do this. So what do they exist for? They provide an alternative utility weapon to the Pistol. But if they provide a small but not overwhelming advantage, then it seems to me they are simply introducing randomness into the gameplay. Is there a small "deficit" introduced which could be recognized by the audience? Possibly -- but it would be a deficit created simply by a  player's choice of weapon not rooted in gun skill or skill-based decision making.

 

Overturning expectation in Halo takes a few forms. One is the Out-Pistol/Out-BR. By cluttering the sandbox with similar weapons, you lose the concept of the "Out-Pistol" along the way (as fewer and fewer 1v1's are pistol-to-pistol). The beauty of Halo is that it's virtually the only competitive esport that I know of where two players with identical abilities, shields, and guns are the "atomic" 1v1 encounter. By stripping away unnecessary variables, the outcomes are more easily recognized and acceptable by audiences and players.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Automatic weapons have a place in competitive Halo.

 

I've dealt with it, and so can you.

In what game? CE is the only one and that's because the autos had special attributes. Without them they were ass. The only other auto is the PR in H2A and those were very scarce but the BR's ease of use kept it balanced.

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that the DMR and pistol are "within a certain range ... negligible in terms of deficit" means to me that only one should be present on the map. Weapon and item placement around the map should exist to dictate map flow. A DMR or BR on the map doesn't do this. So what do they exist for? They provide an alternative utility weapon to the Pistol. But if they provide a small but not overwhelming advantage, then it seems to me they are simply introducing randomness into the gameplay. Is there a small "deficit" introduced which could be recognized by the audience? Possibly -- but it would be a deficit created simply by a player's choice of weapon not rooted in gun skill or skill-based decision making.

 

Overturning expectation in Halo takes a few forms. One is the Out-Pistol/Out-BR. By cluttering the sandbox with similar weapons, you lose the concept of the "Out-Pistol" along the way (as fewer and fewer 1v1's are pistol-to-pistol). The beauty of Halo is that it's virtually the only competitive esport that I know of where two players with identical abilities, shields, and guns are the "atomic" 1v1 encounter. By stripping away unnecessary variables, the outcomes are more easily recognized and acceptable by audiences and players.

You are a beautiful being. People please read this!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

In what game? CE is the only one and that's because the autos had special attributes. Without them they were ass. The only other auto is the PR in H2A and those were very scarce but the BR's ease of use kept it balanced.

The SMG has a special attribute.

 

It kills faster than the Magnum in its optimal range.

 

There you go.

Share this post


Link to post

The SMG has a special attribute.

 

It kills faster than the Magnum in its optimal range.

 

There you go.

When has the smg been in competitive play?

Share this post


Link to post

<p>

 

I'm all for weapon variety as long as it doesn't dilute the sandbox with too many redundant weapons. IMO Halo 5's weapon sandbox is currently better than Halo 2's and Halo 3's sandbox but it's still not as good as Halo CE's sandbox. To avoid cluttering the sandbox in Halo 5 343 needs to differentiate the guns more by adding different traits to them to make them more unique and give them more of a purpose. Here are a couple of examples of unique traits that 343 can give to some of the weapons in Halo 5:

  • Give the AR the ability to be able to go into camo quicker and be able to cancel the power-up animations.
  • Give the SMG the ability to either melee quicker or a longer melee range.
  • Give the storm rifle a stun/slow turn effect.

 

 

As long as you can still use them to effectively kill people in addition, then yes, things like this could help differentiate the autos between each other. Why don't we do the same thing for the various rifles?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

  • I think the AR's in a healthy spot. It's the Magnum that needs to be buffed.
  • The SMG already dominates in CQC. There's no need to make it even better.
  • The Storm Rifle is essentially a harder-to-use SMG with higher range. Considering how quickly it kills if your shots connect, the weapon is fine.

 

 

I do kinda aggree with this.

Share this post


Link to post

 

  • I think the AR's in a healthy spot. It's the Magnum that needs to be buffed.
  • The SMG already dominates in CQC. There's no need to make it even better.
  • The Storm Rifle is essentially a harder-to-use SMG with higher range. Considering how quickly it kills if your shots connect, the weapon is fine.

 

I was just giving some example of ways that 343 could differential the weapons more since they want to shoehorn in and force similar weapons into the same sandbox. To me the SMG and AR are too similar except the SMG is a little stronger. They both need different traits from each other so they can have different niche purposes. The examples of the traits I gave those guns were off the top of my head and don't have to be concrete, I just would like to see all of the guns in the sandbox have different purposes that's all.

Share this post


Link to post

I was just giving some example of ways that 343 could differential the weapons more since they want to shoehorn in and force similar weapons into the same sandbox. To me the SMG and AR are too similar except the SMG is a little stronger. They both need different traits from each other so they can have different niche purposes. The examples of the traits I gave those guns were off the top of my head and don't have to be concrete I just would like to see all of the guns in the sandbox have different purposes that's all.

They don't wanna hear it man. If we don't have 5 of the same weapon the game is "boring"

Share this post


Link to post

Are we really gonna do this again?

So the SMG isn't competitive because it's a Halo 5 weapon? That's a stupid reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post

Are we really gonna do this again?

in all honesty, they can be. Just consider the SMG a power weapon and only have one on the map, buff the pistol, and boom.

 

Edit: What matters more above all is how the weapons are placed on the map

Share this post


Link to post

So the SMG isn't competitive because it's a Halo 5 weapon? That's a stupid reasoning.

Holy crap you are dense. Here's a short answer, RNG is bad for comp. RANDOM and comp are 2 words that don't go together.

Share this post


Link to post

Holy crap you are dense. Here's a short answer, RNG is bad for comp. RANDOM and comp are 2 words that don't go together.

The CE Plasma Rifle had RNG, and it fit well within the competitive sandbox.

Share this post


Link to post

in all honesty, they can be. Just consider the SMG a power weapon and only have one on the map, buff the pistol, and boom.

Yes if the smg were a power weapon then I agree. The problem I have is that it's just a regular ol pickup.

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that the DMR and pistol are "within a certain range ... negligible in terms of deficit" means to me that only one should be present on the map. Weapon and item placement around the map should exist to dictate map flow. A DMR or BR on the map doesn't do this. So what do they exist for? They provide an alternative utility weapon to the Pistol. But if they provide a small but not overwhelming advantage, then it seems to me they are simply introducing randomness into the gameplay. Is there a small "deficit" introduced which could be recognized by the audience? Possibly -- but it would be a deficit created simply by a  player's choice of weapon not rooted in gun skill or skill-based decision making.

 

Overturning expectation in Halo takes a few forms. One is the Out-Pistol/Out-BR. By cluttering the sandbox with similar weapons, you lose the concept of the "Out-Pistol" along the way (as fewer and fewer 1v1's are pistol-to-pistol). The beauty of Halo is that it's virtually the only competitive esport that I know of where two players with identical abilities, shields, and guns are the "atomic" 1v1 encounter. By stripping away unnecessary variables, the outcomes are more easily recognized and acceptable by audiences and players.

 

I believe it will all come down to the placement of weapons on map and how much. 343 is already making a smart move by limiting the amount of precision rifles around the maps (in an earlier post I suggested adding more rifles, but now I change my mind after more thinking). You do have a point about the out-pistol aspect, but on the other hand, what if a player were to pull off a perfect pistol kill against a DMR or LR user from long range? That would spark some crazy reactions and spectator excitement IMO, because it is something that shouldn't happen. I also believe you are overestimating the situations where it is "weapon x vs. weapon y". If 343 keeps limiting the amount of precision rifles then that will also limit the amount of said "random" engagements. If 343 decides to buff the pistol and make it more reliable at all ranges, then that will also promote more pure pistol engagements. As of right now I see nothing wrong with a couple precision rifles around the map. If they are very limited then there is no way they will outshine the role of the default utility weapon (the pistol), but will likely play more of a support role and team shooting from a distance.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that the DMR and pistol are "within a certain range ... negligible in terms of deficit" means to me that only one should be present on the map. Weapon and item placement around the map should exist to dictate map flow. A DMR or BR on the map doesn't do this. So what do they exist for? They provide an alternative utility weapon to the Pistol. But if they provide a small but not overwhelming advantage, then it seems to me they are simply introducing randomness into the gameplay. Is there a small "deficit" introduced which could be recognized by the audience? Possibly -- but it would be a deficit created simply by a player's choice of weapon not rooted in gun skill or skill-based decision making.

 

Overturning expectation in Halo takes a few forms. One is the Out-Pistol/Out-BR. By cluttering the sandbox with similar weapons, you lose the concept of the "Out-Pistol" along the way (as fewer and fewer 1v1's are pistol-to-pistol). The beauty of Halo is that it's virtually the only competitive esport that I know of where two players with identical abilities, shields, and guns are the "atomic" 1v1 encounter. By stripping away unnecessary variables, the outcomes are more easily recognized and acceptable by audiences and players.

 

 

A great read.

 

This got me thinking about ranges and how the AR (in my mind) was always supposed to fit into the starting loadout with the utility/precision weapon.

 

In terms of basic range purpose this is how I believe the CE sandbox balance was supposed to be:

 

Short range: Shotgun

 

Short-mid range: AR

 

Mid Range: Rockets

 

Mid-long range: Magnum

 

Long range: Sniper

 

Somehow, I think that the idea present in the design of Halo, was that, at least in terms of range, the combination of the AR and Magnum made a Utility Loadout, meaning that whenever you swap one out for a different, unique weapon you are sacrificing part of your loadout's utility to become more powerful in a specific area giving a slight trade-off and balance to on map pickups.

 

I believe that this creates a really nice meta, and is the idea behind AR + Magnum starts, but the balance has always been skewed in favor of the Magnum being the sole utility weapon (or the BR/DMR).

 

Something along these lines is why I believe the AR is good to start with.

Share this post


Link to post

For anyone using CE as an argument, let's look at the ttk of the pistol. .6 right? Now look at Halo 5's it's like a 1.2. Now in order to have an AR weapons just as viable as CE we would have to double the ttk of everything else. That would be balance in relation to CE.

 

The problem is we have a pistol that kills slower than the CE version, that is difficult to use (not as CE) yet we have full autos that are stronger than they have ever been. Can you not see the immediate problem? We finally have a skillful utility weapon yet we have other less skillful guns that are stronger than ever before.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe it will all come down to the placement of weapons on map and how much. 343 is already making a smart move by limiting the amount of precision rifles around the maps (in an earlier post I suggested adding more rifles, but now I change my mind after more thinking). You do have a point about the out-pistol aspect, but on the other hand, what if a player were to pull off a perfect pistol kill against a DMR or LR user from long range? That would spark some crazy reactions and spectator excitement IMO, because it is something that shouldn't happen. I also believe you are overestimating the situations where it is "weapon x vs. weapon y". If 343 keeps limiting the amount of precision rifles then that will also limit the amount of said "random" engagements. If 343 decides to buff the pistol and make it more reliable at all ranges, then that will also promote more pure pistol engagements. As of right now I see nothing wrong with a couple precision rifles around the map. If they are very limited then there is no way they will outshine the role of the default utility weapon (the pistol), but will likely play more of a support role and team shooting from a distance.

So you want other rifles so you can see someone get best another player and say "cool". No offense but that's kinda selfish. You want to randomize the game so you can be happy. I don't think you understand Halos need for one utility weapon.

Share this post


Link to post

A great read.

 

This got me thinking about ranges and how the AR (in my mind) was always supposed to fit into the starting loadout with the utility/precision weapon.

 

In terms of basic range purpose this is how I believe the CE sandbox balance was supposed to be:

 

Short range: Shotgun

 

Short-mid range: AR

 

Mid Range: Rockets

 

Mid-long range: Magnum

 

Long range: Sniper

 

Somehow, I think that the idea present in the design of Halo, was that, at least in terms of range, the combination of the AR and Magnum made a Utility Loadout, meaning that whenever you swap one out for a different, unique weapon you are sacrificing part of your loadout's utility to become more powerful in a specific area giving a slight trade-off and balance to on map pickups.

 

I believe that this creates a really nice meta, and is the idea behind AR + Magnum starts, but the balance has always been skewed in favor of the Magnum being the sole utility weapon (or the BR/DMR).

 

Something along these lines is why I believe the AR is good to start with.

I second this, as long as the AR stays in its niche (which a 4sk pistol would do)

Share this post


Link to post

For anyone using CE as an argument, let's look at the ttk of the pistol. .6 right? Now look at Halo 5's it's like a 1.2. Now in order to have an AR weapons just as viable as CE we would have to double the ttk of everything else. That would be balance in relation to CE.

 

The problem is we have a pistol that kills slower than the CE version, that is difficult to use (not as CE) yet we have full autos that are stronger than they have ever been. Can you not see the immediate problem? We finally have a skillful utility weapon yet we have other less skillful guns that are stronger than ever before.

If the Pistol has a TTK of 1.0, then it's not a problem because it can kill faster than the AR at all ranges.

 

If the Pistol is fighting an SMG at close range, then it deserves to lose because that's the SMG's niche. The Pistol would simply beat the SMG by backing up and out of its niche and into medium range where it has trouble hitting.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.