- One One Seven
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Two key balancing concepts:
* A player should never be forced in a position where he knows what his opponents will do, but is helpless to stop them.
* Most weapons should be able to do damage outside their optimum range, and it is possible to kill with them, providing you have sufficient skill.
Let's consider number 1.
Basically, a player should always have a chance. They might be at a disadvantage, but they always have a chance. Importantly, they should start off with this chance; if they choose to forgo it for an increased advantage elsewhere, that's their decision. But they should have been in a neutral position.
E.g, say Swapping the Assault Rifle for the Sniper Rifle (with a pistol), meaning you're outclassed at close range, though very powerful at range.
Number 2:
Essentially, weapons rule their respective niches, but it's possible to use them outside their intended ranges to get kills, though they're not as effective. For instance, the shotgun is great at close range, but still useable at medium range, albeit much less effective than at close range.
If every weapon overlaps, and this is done correctly, it's possible to have a starting configuration where the player always has a chance, without giving the player an overly powerful weapon.
The probelm with this in Halo 2 with BR starts, is that due to a combination of factors, the BR is a very powerful weapon at close, medium, and medium long range; more powerful than intended. Consequently, it can dominate other weapons, in the wrong niche.
This was sort of a problem with Halo 1's pistol, though contrary to popular belief, it's much much harder to pull off than many claim. But the general weapons concept balance was there; the player always had a chance. AR/Pistol vs Shotgun. He can win. Vs Sniper Rifle. Again, possible.
Halo 3 needs to have this (it'd also increase the variety since there'd be more weapons that can be used at various ranges).