Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

So, I really hate Warzone, but I had some ideas for making it decent. Curious what people think.

 

The biggest problems with Warzone and Warzone Assault, snowballing and an overabundance of overpowered weapons, vehicles, and items, are fundamentally the result of its flawed economy system. Players are required to do very little to "earn" their REQ upgrades and their upgrades are self-replenishing. Players gain REQ levels for getting kills (with any weapon), they get access to better and easier weapons which allow them to get more kills with less effort, and this process continues until they have access to a ludicrous array of power weapons and vehicles.
 
The issue with this is that it, by its nature, compounds early advantages. Not only does the advantaged team get the inherent benefit of outslaying the enemy team (points, number advantage, map control, etc), but they ALSO get the additional and continuous reward of weapon upgrades, resulting in increasingly more imbalanced engagements for the winning team and making any coordinated effort from the losing team exponentially more difficult. Take this and apply it to the long-established history of pub-stomping and spawn-killing in Halo, and you have created the perfect environment for completely one-sided farming by vaguely coordinated, average teams of twelve on random solo queue players. 343's solution to this was to limit you to a party of six. I think my solution would actually address the problem instead of just putting a band-aid on it.
 
1. Getting kills should not have equal rewards across the board. Killing someone with a magnum and killing someone with Nornfang are not equivalent accomplishments. Instead, there should be a steep drop off in REQ energy/level reward for using power weapons/vehicles, with the top levels having practically none or none at all. The reward is the easy kills and map control. You shouldn't get points towards more free kill weapons for getting kills with free kill weapons.
 
2. REQ energy should NOT regenerate automatically. This is a silly mechanic that only serves to increase the power weapon and vehicle spam for no particular reason. REQs should be valuable resources that you earn by completing your objectives and getting meaningful kills. Not cheap candy that you get out of your cute sci-fi vending machine every 30 seconds.
 
3. Reduce the amount of ammunition you get for most REQs. They last far too long.
 
4. Add static power weapon/power-up spawns to the maps, ideally the stupidly overpowered variants (as long as they are in the game), away from power positions like the spire. This forces advantaged teams out of their power positions/bases and provides disadvantaged teams an opportunity to gain an advantage. Kind of like the bosses were supposed to do except that didn't work because you need power weapon spam to do any damage to them. It also gives 343 something to do with the 50% of a map like Apex 7 that is basically pointless empty space.
 
5. Increase the cost of basically every vehicle.
 
6. Significantly decrease the vehicle cap per team. There is no reason you should be able to rush a core with a full squad of Ghosts (I have done this). There's no reason you should need more than one or two tanks per team at a time. It's ridiculous.
 
7. Throw the wasp in the trash and set it on fire.

 

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

Peer to fucking Peer? God Damn it Activision. What the fuck is even the point of online multiplayer anymore. Some joke. Fucking bottom of the barrel net code doesn't cut it anymore

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

So, I really hate Warzone, but I had some ideas for making it decent. Curious what people think.

 

The biggest problems with Warzone and Warzone Assault, snowballing and an overabundance of overpowered weapons, vehicles, and items, are fundamentally the result of its flawed economy system. Players are required to do very little to "earn" their REQ upgrades and their upgrades are self-replenishing. Players gain REQ levels for getting kills (with any weapon), they get access to better and easier weapons which allow them to get more kills with less effort, and this process continues until they have access to a ludicrous array of power weapons and vehicles.
 
The issue with this is that it, by its nature, compounds early advantages. Not only does the advantaged team get the inherent benefit of outslaying the enemy team (points, number advantage, map control, etc), but they ALSO get the additional and continuous reward of weapon upgrades, resulting in increasingly more imbalanced engagements for the winning team and making any coordinated effort from the losing team exponentially more difficult. Take this and apply it to the long-established history of pub-stomping and spawn-killing in Halo, and you have created the perfect environment for completely one-sided farming by vaguely coordinated, average teams of twelve on random solo queue players. 343's solution to this was to limit you to a party of six. I think my solution would actually address the problem instead of just putting a band-aid on it.
 
1. Getting kills should not have equal rewards across the board. Killing someone with a magnum and killing someone with Nornfang are not equivalent accomplishments. Instead, there should be a steep drop off in REQ energy/level reward for using power weapons/vehicles, with the top levels having practically none or none at all. The reward is the easy kills and map control. You shouldn't get points towards more free kill weapons for getting kills with free kill weapons.
 
2. REQ energy should NOT regenerate automatically. This is a silly mechanic that only serves to increase the power weapon and vehicle spam for no particular reason. REQs should be valuable resources that you earn by completing your objectives and getting meaningful kills. Not cheap candy that you get out of your cute sci-fi vending machine every 30 seconds.
 
3. Reduce the amount of ammunition you get for most REQs. They last far too long.
 
4. Add static power weapon/power-up spawns to the maps, ideally the stupidly overpowered variants (as long as they are in the game), away from power positions like the spire. This forces advantaged teams out of their power positions/bases and provides disadvantaged teams an opportunity to gain an advantage. Kind of like the bosses were supposed to do except that didn't work because you need power weapon spam to do any damage to them. It also gives 343 something to do with the 50% of a map like Apex 7 that is basically pointless empty space.
 
5. Increase the cost of basically every vehicle.
 
6. Significantly decrease the vehicle cap per team. There is no reason you should be able to rush a core with a full squad of Ghosts (I have done this). There's no reason you should need more than one or two tanks per team at a time. It's ridiculous.
 
7. Throw the wasp in the trash and set it on fire.

 

I'd like to add on some changes I would make to how REQs are handled for Warzone.

 

1. REQs are now permanent unlocks tied to the progression system on top of the random drops.

 

2. REQ cards are assigned a point value. You can now build a deck of REQs with a limited point value cap. Ex: 20 point deck point limit. A sniper rifle card is worth say 5 points. More powerful cards cost more points. ( I'm thinking of maybe allowing you a weapon, vehicle and powerup deck with each having a respective point total, but having a single deck is fine to.)

 

3. Cards now have limited numbered uses on a game to game basis (ex: sniper has a maximum of 3 uses) before being permanently disabled for the rest of the respective match, but is completely replenished for the next match/round. 

 

4. More powerful cards would have fewer uses (ex: Nornfang can only be used once, while a suppressor can be used 5 times etc.)

 

5. Attachments and armor mods are now attached to the progression system and are retooled as custom class loadouts.

 

The beauty of my system is that it removes the fear of wasting rare cards, keeps spamming at a minimum and keeps more powerful cards in check. Throw in your changes to the REQ point system, and we got ourselves a massively improved experience across the board.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I'd just make it a BTB variant instead of its own separate experience. Make 24 players the new BTB standard.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I find it ironic that 343 really wants to trim down on playlists so that there's more people on each playlist, yet design warzone and breakout and split the players up even more. in a game that struggles to get pop playing the game i don't know why making the BTB standard 24 players is a good idea.

 

strip away the rewards and you have a chaotic BTB with AI, infinity style ordnance/reqs and weak maps. Any game mode which has that many incentives and rewards in the form of unlockables will be popular, why not have a well designed gametype (eg BTB) and throw on the rewards? Split it into 2 modes, a serious BTB (maybe 6 v 6) then social BTB, with social BTB having more vehicles and maybe AI so it keeps the more chaotic feel.

 

Why design 6 maps for 1 gamemode and throw everything that isn't warzone or comp 4v4 under the bus? 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Halo SHOULD have p2p, as a backup and to facilitate LAN support.

 

That said, it would force them to find some CPU savings elsewhere- potentially by losing the dynamic res and settling on sub 1080p.

 

fuck this weakass hardware

 

False. The quality of p2p is a function Of how good you're connection is to the host. Being in the US doesn't make p2p better.

 

If you don't live near a dedicated server, p2p would be better. In fact, there are people who can't play Halo5 online at all because they aren't near an Azure data center. These people would be better served by a P2p solution.

 

Halo should have both.

when you live in new zealand you never truly win 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I see no logical reason not to just make Warzone an extension of BTB on top of the player increase. Not every mode HAS to have 24 players, just make it possible to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

Warzone should just get deleted from existence

I think Warzone is a valuable addition to the franchise, but it definately needs a complete overhaul of they want to combat the snowball nature of it all.

 

There are some great suggestions above.

 

I think AI enemies are a sorely missed opportunity. As mentioned previously, they are supposed to draw the fight away from strongholds, but the most efficient way to score ends up being sniping them with a power weapon or vehicle at the last second. Instead of aim bot bullet sponges, bosses should have normal behavior, but with modifiers that encourage map control instead of cheese. Perhaps a tank boss that can instantly be killed by a boarder. Or a elite that must be back smacked. Bosses should be flanked by tons of normal health minions.

 

I think capturing bases shouldn't contribute to the score at all. Instead bases just open up specific req types to your team and serve as spawn locations.

 

All scoring should be the result of completing objectives- whether that be killing bosses, capturing flags, holding an oddball for x amount of time, planting a bomb on the enemies side of the map, etc. Multiple objectives can be in play at once.

 

In addition to being able to call reqs in, weapons should spawn on the map.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't played Halo 5, but I still keep up with it and I search "Halo" on Youtube every couple of days. And yet, 60 seconds ago I found out Torque was a map. I have never seen this map before. That is bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't played Halo 5, but I still keep up with it and I search "Halo" on Youtube every couple of days. And yet, 60 seconds ago I found out Torque was a map. I have never seen this map before. That is bizarre.

 

listen to me.. that map never happened and never existed..

 

what are we talking about again?

Share this post


Link to post

listen to me.. that map never happened and never existed..

 

what are we talking about again?

Torque is the least of Halo 5s problems in terms of maps. The fact that overgrowth exists is beyond me.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that overgrowth exists is beyond me.

 

It's like they ripped a CoD map piece-by-piece, but even by modern CoD's standards it's an abysmal map.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Torque is the least of Halo 5s problems in terms of maps. The fact that overgrowth exists is beyond me.

When they made Torque, it's like they asked all the shit kid forgers who do nothing but make variants of checkerboards and threelanes what a good map is, and they came up with the bare minimum that constitutes as both.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Torque is the least of Halo 5s problems in terms of maps. The fact that overgrowth exists is beyond me.

it was not that bad on strongholds

Share this post


Link to post

it was not that bad on strongholds

If it's symmetrical, its shit for strongholds.

 

The whole premise of Strongholds should be to bring gameplay to areas of maps that are otherwise less viable.

 

With a symmetrical map, two of those areas will be identical.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

it was not that bad on strongholds

I didn't realize the "not that bad" was our standard for AAA console sellers now.

 

But I get your point.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If it's symmetrical, its shit for strongholds.

 

The whole premise of Strongholds should be to bring gameplay to areas of maps that are otherwise less viable.

 

With a symmetrical map, two of those areas will be identical.

I don't even know about that I think we can go even further.

 

 

I think strongholds purpose is to force control over the majority of the map and reward whichever team has greater map control. Which is why I've been saying it's fundamentally no different than Slayer. Only slayer map control isn't a prerequisite , it's just an advantage. Which is why I'll take slayer over strongholds.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even know about that I think we can go even further.

 

 

I think strongholds purpose is to force control over the majority of the map and reward whichever team has greater map control. Which is why I've been saying it's fundamentally no different than Slayer. Only slayer map control isn't a prerequisite , it's just an advantage. Which is why I'll take slayer over strongholds.

Which I agree with, but if it's going to exist, it should be used to offer different movement through maps than Slayer typically would.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't realize the "not that bad" was our standard for AAA console sellers now.

 

But I get your point.

A Halo 5 map that is "meh" is the the one everybody would vote for given the option to vote was still in the game.

 

 

Not one Halo 5 map would make a "Top Halo Maps" list. Not even if the number in the "Top Halo Maps" list exceeded the number of maps in Halo history. It'd just be repeats or forge remakes. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've said it before but Warzone should've just been BTB on bigger maps, more players, with unique on-map weapons/vehicles. Perhaps also keeping the same objective based format.

 

That's all you needed to do.  The REQ system is just an unnecessary and convoluted cash grab.

 

If you're going to incorporate a weapon purchase system then this is how it should work.  Everyone has an infinite amount of each REQ, there is no unboxing cards to use in-match.  What determines your ability to use a REQ isn't whether you have the card or not, but whether you have the limited in-match resources to be able to afford it or not.  The system should handle weapons in basically the same way that Counter-Strike does.  Not "Oh the enemy has tons of incineration cannon cards but I only have mongoose cards, gg, better lose more matches to be able to unbox more cards".

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even know about that I think we can go even further.

 

 

I think strongholds purpose is to force control over the majority of the map and reward whichever team has greater map control. Which is why I've been saying it's fundamentally no different than Slayer. Only slayer map control isn't a prerequisite , it's just an advantage. Which is why I'll take slayer over strongholds.

That's honestly really hard to agree with in general. There's way more to it than just controlling the entire map as best you can which is just what you'd call the end game objective in any mode in Halo. When to drop and give up map control to capture points and when not to etc is way more nuanced than simply calling it map control and often very different than what you would've done in a slayer. 

 

It opens a lot of decisions revolving around slaying or objective that, imo, allows the better team/players more opportunities to extend their advantage or come back compared to slayer.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Someone wrote something on net neutrality on reddit the other day, and the first thing I can think of is that it's just like sprint.

 

"They're not trying to make everyone faster,  everyone else just slows down and you have to pay to go faster"  I'm paraphrasing since it's almost impossible to find the quote again

 

 

Ahh here's the quote

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/69zn0n/the_fcc_is_about_to_ruin_pc_gaming_for_everyone/dhaz0lz/

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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