Recently Frank O’Connor stated this about the REQ system "We watched the EA battlefront thing with the curiosity you'd expect - but our current req system is player focused and well liked and unintrusive as far as these things go."Thank you for starting this thread. I was getting ready to start one of my own. I was also going to leave a couple of source links. I like to leave the source of the quotes whenever I can.
The game is built around the REQ System with no way to unlock armour or skins through a progression system, forcing you to go into the store just to open a pack. I personally find the system to be intrusive and I wanna hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. I'm honestly concerned that 343 sees their system as this even after the Battlefront 2 EA debacle.
Source of the Frankie quote from a thread titled Rumor: MS re-evaluating how loot boxes will be implemented in Halo 6 after EA BFII fiasco. Now this thread was started because of this podcast, The Sames Report. Go to around the 12:00 minute mark to hear what Frankie is responding to about what this guy is saying about loot boxes for Halo 6. I think it's nice to know the context for his comment.
That being said I take a different look at this whole "unintrusive" idea. It's not about whether or not it is just cosmetic or if the weapons are only available in Warzone. It is the fact that the whole Req system influenced the development of the entire multiplayer experience. The cosmetic numbers were bloated in order to accommodate this idea of "free dlc". We were told "free dlc" in order to help sell the Req system, and we have all been around long enough to know that most of the DLC maps and armors were just reskins. We don't need more and more when that more that we get is substandard. We don't need a loot box system that gives us the illusion of free and great. What we need is more of a reality of high quality, well made and interesting maps and skins that we are more than willing to either pay money for or earn through in game achievement.
I don't think we can deny that Warzone received a high priority in development. How many playlists and modes did we not have at launch because of their focus on Warzone? Have we already forgotten the missing BTB, and no developer made maps? Warzone is built around Reqs, and vice versa. We have only three exclusively, achievement based helmets. The ones we can buy, and the Challenger armor set don't count. The Req system again benefits from this.
The Spartan Rank with the ridiculous high max XP required to reach 152 once again all about Req's and Req boosts. The newly created weapon variants for Warzone made their way into Arena, and ranked Arena. Why else would we have those weapons if not for Warzone and the Req system?
You say unintrusive...I say their loot box system intruded all over Halo 5. I believe wholeheartedly that if we keep on this mindset of, "Well, it's not that bad.", then we will definitely continue to see it in our games. Frankie's statement is proof that even with the outcry of dislike for their system. They still think it is well liked. That fact that he says well liked just blows my mind. My guess is he is basing that on the numbers.
I am very concerned and disheartened by Frankies statement, and the obviousness of how the loot system in gaming has turned us to acquiescent gamers especially when it comes to our most loved game.
The stuff in bold is pretty much summing up the reasons for my disdain for the REQ-system. It ruined what Halo 5: Guardians should have been at launch.
All those resources that was put into creating the REQ-system and the Warzone game-mode that was built around it was resources NOT put into further perfecting the Classic Halo formula (what is today called Ranked and Arena).
Halo 5: Guardians at release was unpolished and bare boned. No BTB, and a lot of other game-modes that SHOULD have been there.
"Free DLC" was just fixes to a broken game. And the addition of Wasps.....yay.
Let's not forget: no split-screen!
I honestly assume
no split-screen was a direct result of the resources needed for implementing the REQ-system. It makes sense; First game with REQs and Warzone, first game without Split-screen.
--------------Warzone, The Early 120-ish Spartan Levels. A Short Horror Story---------------------------------------------------------
I've played Warzone from launch, and saying that the REQ-system is un-intrusive just tells me he didn't play the game.
At start you have an AR and Magnum, then everyone gets REQ-level 3. While you have a Magnum, the enemy had Longshot or Sentinel BRs.
For me, it took a LONG while before I got a BR, let alone a scoped one. So I spent a long time getting outranged and outgunned BY LOADOUT WEAPONS
Enter REQ-level 4, and the enemy spawns SMGs. So I get outranged by the enemy BRs, and in close-quarters the enemy now had SMGs while I had my trust AR.
Sure, pilfering weapons was fun, but REALLY hard. And annoying.
Then I finally got a BR with a Longshot scope, at level 20-something. Yay!
Enter REQ-level 6.
The enemy suddenly starts outgunning me AGAIN, this time with DMRs.
I got my first by level 80-something,not even a joke, I was really unlucky!
So now I could stand on equal footing against the enemy on more than half of a Warzone game. At level 80.
Enter REQ-level 8. Remember when people started unlocking the Bayonet weapon variants, and you didn't have one?
I do. Suddenly you knew you had to avoid close-quarters combat at all cost every late game Warzone match.
My biggest problem with the REQ-system was actually never The Nornfang, The Answer or whatever, those I could counter or they would run out of ammo.
The Loadout weapons where another thing, and they plagued Warzone until I had almost ALL WEAPONS UNLOCKED myself.
Remember this was pre-weapon tuning when all loadout weapons where actually good.
Saying that the REQ-system is un-intrusive is a lie.