Mod, the problem you're having is that what you're describing isn't representative of what those of us who play Halo experience. It's almost impossible to lock down all of the power weapons in the initial rush, and even if you do, all of them either have very little ammo (Splaser, Rockets) or can be easily countered if you know what you're doing (Shotty, Sword, Snipes). So this idea of the rich getting richer from the power weapons in Halo simply doesn't exist, so you shouldn't be too surprised when people argue it.

FWIW, I did always feel that there should be a marker to show where power weapons are on the map to help newbies, but beyond that I thought the weapon spawning system in Halo was fine.

I just don't know if you can cater to the pros and the casuals if you make a competitive FPS, and if it isn't a competitive game then it isn't a game is it?

I compete with the AI on XCOM to see who's luckier.

Roujin wrote:

Olimite wrote:

Jacuzzi_Jackson wrote:

So the future of FPS should have no power weapons, no kills streaks, no score line as this can be exploited in a 'rich get richer' sense, no advantage to skilled players.....

Obviously not, but it should cater to people who don't spend what feels like every second of every day playing.

How should they be catered to? Lower skilled players should be given some sort of advantage to help them keep up with players who are better? How is that going to help? At the core of any non-cooperative online multiplayer system is that you are competing to win. If you play with people who have more knowledge, experience, or raw skill than you, you will likely do worse than they do in a given game.

Yup, and it's up to the match making system to get players of a similar level playing together. it worked a treat in Halo 2, I'm not sure what's gone wrong since.

Yossarian wrote:

Mod, the problem you're having is that what you're describing isn't representative of what those of us who play Halo experience. It's almost impossible to lock down all of the power weapons in the initial rush, and even if you do, all of them either have very little ammo (Splaser, Rockets) or can be easily countered if you know what you're doing (Shotty, Sword, Snipes). So this idea of the rich getting richer from the power weapons in Halo simply doesn't exist, so you shouldn't be too surprised when people argue it.

I'm not saying it's possible to lock down weapons every time, nor doing so guarantees a win. I'm saying that that's what everyone tries to do because you've seen the consequences of not doing it so the game has trained you to do it. Don't try and pretend you or anyone else will start a game and just ignore them. It's already been stated coordinating power weapon pickups is a skilled way to play.

It's the perks/weapons/killstreaks altering the way people play a game and moving it away from a pure position/aim/shoot/kill mechanic I dislike.

Nothing has gone drastically wrong really, the players who are better than you in your skill brakcet will still beat you.

Reach had a worse method for assessing player skill than 3, so you got games with wider skill gaps. The only difference is that in games with better methods for matching players of similar skill the games are closer, therefore more fun for both parties, however the better people will still beat you.

EDIT: @Sparkeh

Olimite wrote:

Roujin wrote:

Olimite wrote:

Jacuzzi_Jackson wrote:

So the future of FPS should have no power weapons, no kills streaks, no score line as this can be exploited in a 'rich get richer' sense, no advantage to skilled players.....

Obviously not, but it should cater to people who don't spend what feels like every second of every day playing.

How should they be catered to? Lower skilled players should be given some sort of advantage to help them keep up with players who are better? How is that going to help? At the core of any non-cooperative online multiplayer system is that you are competing to win. If you play with people who have more knowledge, experience, or raw skill than you, you will likely do worse than they do in a given game.

No, sorry, I meant something like an 'anti-ranked' match to combat the 'win at all costs' players. I come across them on Fifa all the time who utilise weaknesses in the game's programming (not bugs) to gain an advatage over opponents.

You can remove the score I suppose and just let players play a 15 minute game with no winner or loser decided.

Play Tribes: Ascend then, you literally skate!

To be clear, I wasn't having a pop at Halo 4 matchmaking as I've not played it enough, I had the Battlefields in mind when I wrote that. Match making seems to be nonexistent in those games.

I thing Face should knock up a list of fundamental requirements to create a winning FPS formula and have it in the OP. A good matchmaking system and reasons to roam the map being the first on the list.

Yeah good rank based match making is one of the keys to a good FPS for sure. You want games to be tight. Losing by one kill is usually more fun than winning a landslide victory.

Tempy wrote:

Play Tribes: Ascend then, you literally skate!

I've heard good things from some players I used to play with about Tribes but i cba sitting in front of a PC anymore tbh.

I have a bit of a checkered history with FPS DM anyway, I very nearly lost my job and my marraige over it - never again. Quite happy slouched about with a beer on the Sexbox.

Mod74 wrote:

wonderbanana wrote:

It's the perks/weapons/killstreaks altering the way people play a game and moving it away from a pure position/aim/shoot/kill mechanic I dislike.

Forgive my possible lack of attention and I'm genuinely not looking to be an arse but isn't this different to how youe started? Either way, on that point I agree with you

Not really

Mod74 wrote:

I remember now why I gave up on COD past MW2, people camping all day to get the killstreak that pushes them to the top of the scoreboard. It's the 'rich get richer' thing that ruins it. I'd actually put Halo's rush for the super weapons and 'lock this area down to control the pink laser' in the same category.

Ah got it.

It was the comparison with the 'Halo rush' as you put it which isn't the same thing at all.

Short term memory dude, age I swear

wonderbanana wrote:

It's the perks/weapons/killstreaks altering the way people play a game and moving it away from a pure position/aim/shoot/kill mechanic I dislike.

Forgive my possible lack of attention and I'm genuinely not looking to be an arse but isn't this different to how youe started? Either way, on that point I agree with you

Not really

I remember now why I gave up on COD past MW2, people camping all day to get the killstreak that pushes them to the top of the scoreboard. It's the 'rich get richer' thing that ruins it. I'd actually put Halo's rush for the super weapons and 'lock this area down to control the pink laser' in the same category.

Ah got it. It was the comparison with the 'Halo rush' as you put it which isn't the same thing at all. Short term memory dude, age I swear

Halo power weapon 'management' is a less egregious phenomenon than kill streaks which I why I added it as a related afterthought. I don't particularly like the mechanic but I don't hate it like the COD killstreaks.

Yossarian wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Mod, the problem you're having is that what you're describing isn't representative of what those of us who play Halo experience. It's almost impossible to lock down all of the power weapons in the initial rush, and even if you do, all of them either have very little ammo (Splaser, Rockets) or can be easily countered if you know what you're doing (Shotty, Sword, Snipes). So this idea of the rich getting richer from the power weapons in Halo simply doesn't exist, so you shouldn't be too surprised when people argue it.

I'm not saying it's possible to lock down weapons every time, nor doing so guarantees a win. I'm saying that that's what everyone tries to do because you've seen the consequences of not doing it so the game has trained you to do it. Don't try and pretend you or anyone else will start a game and just ignore them. It's already been stated coordinating power weapon pickups is a skilled way to play. It's the perks/weapons/killstreaks altering the way people play a game and moving it away from a pure position/aim/shoot/kill mechanic I dislike.

It's not that it's not possible to lock down the power weapons every time, it's that it's almost impossible to do so. At a rough estimate of all the games of Halo I've ever played, I reckon that in far less than even 1% of them, one team manages to lock down all of the power weapons. As I say, this is a problem which barely exists. Fair play, if you just don't like the mechanics, then you don't like the mechanics, that's fine, there's no need to justify it by claiming issues which barely ever crop up.

You're not saying the attempt to lock them down never happens are you? Because it's only both teams attempting it that prevents one team from actually doing it. If one team didn't contest the weapons the other team would have a lock down.

It's the altering of gameplay that I dislike, not the success rate of the endeavour. At best it forces people into a power weapon stalemate. Power weapons are 'balanced' because both teams play by the 'rules'. In which case why fucking have them...oh yeah, because it makes things more interesting and moves the game along. If we're talking about the future of FPS lets think of some better ways to make the game interesting and keep it moving without having to resort to plonking super weapons on the map.

@Mod, fair enough, but the thing with the power weapons on the map is that it does offer many risk/reward moments throughout the game, and ones which can bring a whole team together. I can't think of any other way of doing that in a Slayer match.

I reckon that the future of FPSs is likely to be fundamentally the same mechanics, but with extra stuff added on top, such as being massively multiplayer and persistent worlds. Essentially, whatever Bungie are doing.