I see the arguments for a wider skill gap is better for low level play, but then the game is just not fun at a low level if all the weapons are too hard to use. I think most of the competitive problems with Halo 5 stem from UI and playlist management more than anything. Gears of War 4 for example handle it much better with the difference between social, core and competitive lobbies being vastly different.
Splitting the social, core, and competitive communities into different playlists is an artificial way to segment the population. So rather than designing a game where natural ability seperates players by skill and drive, you have people select the playlist that matches their drive.
This probably works decently if your game has a massive population. But creates problems for the average player who's drive changes. Any time your attitude shits for the day, you have to learn to play a completely different game.
In the case of Halo, I think it's better to have a base set weapons that are balanced for a high skill gap, but then allow weapon placements and rulesets in the social playlists that can minimize the need for gunskill and randomize the outcomes (looser Matchmaking, looser gametypes like fiesta, juggernaut, odd ball, richochete, territories, crazy king etc)
As far as my understand a game with a large skill gap is a game like Siege which is incredibly frustrating to play at a low level. However Rocket League has a huge skill gap but is plenty fun to play at low skill levels (I'm barely average and always have a blast, I guess its different with non-shooters). Whereas a game like CoD, Destiny, Titanfall (sort of this one, the movement makes this a tricky one) have small skill gaps but if anything I don't see that as a bad thing.
With Siege, it isn't the skill gap that frustrates new players. If new players are playing against new players there wouldn't be enough pressure to cause frustration. What's frustrating here is the skill floor- the basic level of competence needed to be able to positively effect a match.
Compared to Rocket League, Seige's skill floor is very high. Even if you've never played RL, you immediately figure how to drive a car and push a ball into a net. If you never played Seige you are absolutely clueless about what weapons and equipment to take, where to go, where the enemy will come from, and have to get a grasp of what each button does. And still have to be quick and accurate with aim.
Games like TitanFall, COD, and Destiny have core audiences that largely value the components that randomize outcomes- which is something Halo's audience has historically rejected in ranked modes. I think that's why the smaller skill gap works for them.
I just don't see how the changes 343 is making really benefits low level play at all, if its to separate low level and high level players then thats a mute point because thats the point of matchmaking. I guess it makes playing in Onyx more interesting but playing in Silver frustrating and less fun than it already is. Not to mention its not precision weapon starts only, which they've said if that works in this test they'll move that everywhere. Again how is that good for casual players? What about the new radar, how is that good for casual players? How is nerfing the AR for casual players?
Ok this is the misconception.
So, a matchmaking system is an artificial attempt to classify players by their likihood of winning against the rest of the talent pool. The skill distribution, in terms of CSR is easily manipulated by the numbers the dev chooses to feed the system. In fact, 343 has tried to manipulate the H5 system several times to make the ranking system feel better. The problem is, arbitrarily redistributing CSR makes for a more normal CSR distribution (CSR curve looks like a short distribution) but it doesn't change the fact that, mechanically, the population is still concentrated around the same level (a mechanical skill distribution would still be a tall distribution)
So all your doing is spreading ranks throughout the curve so it LOOKS like you have a flat distribution of skill. But players on the left/right edges are still VERY close in mechanical skill to those in the center- they are just slightly less likely to win. All you've done is increased the amount of sweat required to get from gold 3 to plat 6 because,in reality, a gold3 player is almost as good as a plat 6 player.
I've appreciated the insight from some of these replies and wouldn't mind some more of your thoughts on these. The skill gap seems to be managed fine by the matchmaking right now, so increasing the skill gap just makes lower level play harder and less fun. Unless there is something I am missing?
So, no matchmaking can't manage skill gap. It can make it look like there is a skill gap. But it can't change the fact that the games design locks players mechanical skill to a central level.
Just imagine if every gun simply locked onto enemies and was a 1hk - very low skill gap. Players would still find ways to differentiate themselves ( knowing the best positions, knowing what routes to take etc) but mechanically, everyone would be similar. This would make for win probability differentials, allowing the dev to feed data to MM system that appears to manage the skill differential, but the games population would be so mechically similar that every game would be a sweat box.
Increasing the skill gap shouldn't make the game less fun, unless the wrong steps are being taken. the goal shouldn't be to make simply make guns weaker- it should be to make a skilled player be able to differentiate themselves with those guns.
The AR, for example, is just as powerful as it's always been, If two low level players who really haven't grasped movement are shooting at each other with the new ARs, their avg kill times should be unchanged. The difference is, If a higher skilled player comes up against an AR user he can actually defend himself. Likewise, a player can actually become GOOD with the AR, by learning to control its spread - rather than the AR being easily mastered by anyone.
I think the biggest problem now is not that guns are harder or less fun, it's that people spent 2 years playing one way which biases what they find fun. Also people are naturally reluctant to change. Many of these changes should have happened no later than 1.5 yrs ago. I also find it weird that they tweaked handling instead of just tweaking magnetism, RRR, and ROF. When you play with peoples muscle memory, things get hairy.
_/¯
