Echo

Pfffft, in private custom games you can play up to 8v8. 16 players, max. Same with the match making list "Big Team Battle." That list supports 16 players as well for those who want a quick 16 player match without needing all those friends lol Also, you shouldn't need push to talk if you join a party chat through the xbox live dashboard. You can have up to 8 people in a chat so you can just have one chat for one team and one chat for the other team. and talk online or something lol I don't even think they still use push to talk.. it wasnt in reach i dont think. but then again i dont talk much unless im with friends, and my friends quit reach cause it was kinda meh :/

I've been playing through the old Halos recently, I'm currently on Halo 3 now, but I always thought it was cool how the secondary weapon showed up on the chiefs back. And then I thought about how dual weapons could easily be set on each side of his hip, in different holsters. And then it made me think about the possibility of them bringing back dual wielding in Halo 5 since it'd be the "Halo 2" of the new trilogy. And because they tried so hard to make this give off the same new "discovery" impression that Halo CE gave off, they might try to do the same with Halo 2. Hijacking and dual wielding were some of the biggest changes to the series. So I thought it'd be cool to think of some armor mods for dual wielding. I kinda like the idea of having a mod that lets you have two holsters, allowing you to keep both dual wielding weapons in your secondary slot instead of dropping it when you switch weapons. This way, even if dual wielding wasnt used as much in halo 3, maybe it would be used more often by people who choose to walk around with an already set pair of two dual wielding weapons. Why dual wield if it forces you into a decision that ultimately gets turned over every once and a while by BR's and other primary weapons. If I could save two weapons, I could see myself using duals more in Halo 3. If I need to reload my BR or someone gets close to me I could just throw out two SMGs and finish him off.

To be fair, if you read the whole post it actually was an apology. Had a rocky start... but an apology nonetheless.

Sad, isn't it?

Anyone else like to do what I do? I like to play a map on the previous Halo that's also on the new one, and when the new one comes out I play on that same level. So for example, right before I head out to the midnight launch, I'm just going to explore Valhalla (after beating the last level from the Halo 3 campaign to lead me into the new game). I'm going to explore every nook and cranny of that map and just have fun playing with the old stuff. Then, when I get Halo 4, I might play campaign first for an hour or so, but then I'm going to go onto Ragnarok and see all the changes they made. Normally I like to go directly from the old game map to the new game map, but I feel like the campaign would be a better introduction to Halo 4, since it's the biggest gap in graphics between Halo games. It'd be nice to see it in all it's glory for a great first impression, since campaign has slightly better graphics than multiplayer does. I might forge on Valhalla and Ragnarok, but not to spawn weapons I havent used in campaign yet, I want to just spawn vehicles that I might want to use to see how it feels to drive a warthog through the new level.

Lol sure brings a lot to the table, doesn't it?

Lol it's funny because you care enough to keep coming back. And you don't read what I have to say because you're finding contradictions in your own paraphrasing. If you read the last few parts of it, you'd realize why it's a dumb idea. But your comprehensive skills are obviously at question here. It's hard for the other team to kill you because there's not a waypoint over the enemy team. Not to mention that by the time they actually find you (if they find you) the game is practically half over, already giving them a major disadvantage. And that's IF they find them. Your team scrambles around trying to get the enemies attention to kill your own bomb carrier, they just kill you instead cause they have no idea what the hell you're doing, after this song and dance is over you barely have enough time to proceed with the game. Round over, teams switch objectives, and you're already out of a round point because of what just happened. Keep in mind, this is all still ONE situation. If need be, I'll post more. But I don't feel any need to since RedStar decided to give up on his own topic lol FYI, RedStar, if you make a long topic and ask for other people's opinions, you can't just shut certain people off for responding to you. You can either lock it, or hear why I think you're wrong while willingly accepting any responses you have. Learn to forum.

...But I've been telling you this whole time why the things happen the way they do NOW. It's because there is friendly fire. My whole point behind all of this is, yes, there ARE exploits when it comes to friendly fire being on, but what I'm trying to tell you is that those exploits would be far worse if friendly fire was off. And, I'm also telling you that if those exploits were there, they would be taken advantage of. People don't play keep away and desecrate an enemy base with unfair explosive tactics because it's literally unable to do so. If friendly fire were off, like it was said before, and repeated by other members in this thread, things like base bashing and grieving would all be in the game. Saying it wouldn't be exploited because of how people play NOW, with friendly fire already on, is an incredibly dumb statistic to follow. Ironic I stand uncorrected. A team mates grenade would end someone elses multi-kill regardless. That's why I pointed this part out before. It just simply held no ground to your argument and was ultimately a pointless meme to make. Exactly, people don't contemplate all the possible ways to end your multi-kill, that was my point. You said people would just choke someones killionaire and, seeing as how it was at the end of a rather long argument reply, I assumed you said it in favor of no team killing. My point was that killing a team mate to stop their multi-kill spree is just dumb, and an "accidental grenade" wouldn't favor either my or your side. (even though it technically favors my side more.) Then you would be wrong, as I just stated above. You pointed out ONE scenario that would benefit your side. It's an unfortunate situation, yes, but it's still one tiny "random" fight scenario compared to the objective-like trolling that could take place. Well I never said it was more realistic, I said it was more fair. This is so ironic it hurts XD because this is exactly what I was telling you. YOU were trying to pull ratios and statistics out of your ass when in reality the only thing that matters is their distinct outcome. One option allows players to be annoying to team mates, while the other allows stronger forms of cheating/grieving that could destroy a game 100% of the time that it's abused in a game. Hear me out though... regardless of which side has more advantages than the other, from a game dev stand point (not saying im a pro or anything) but you can't allow a match made game to have scenarios where the match is completely ruined. And by ruined, I mean someone joining the game, grabbing the flag, playing keep away and not being able to die, these are all things that literally prevent the game from continuing. Whether or not they WOULD happen all the time, shouldn't even matter, because you need to eliminate things that make games completely unplayable. Allowing players to kill one another was the best option because they implemented a boot system. It's not perfect, but it's the only option they had that would work with it, since NOT having friendly fire is not an option, since you can't boot someone for holding an item for too long. (Cause then you could just boot someone for fun if it takes you guys a while to go in with the bomb). Sure, team killing is lame, and it DOES happen more than it probably should, but it's still something that ultimately doesn't destroy the game because you can at least boot them for it. If someone on my team grabbed the bomb on a 1 bomb match and just decided to troll us, I'd sit there... and be able to do nothing. Only option I have is to wait it out and lose, or quit the game and lose EXP. Oh, the fun in that. It's not that I'm not listening to you, it's just simply not a good option for Halo. Maybe it is for other games but most other games don't tie you into a situation that would make it THAT easy to just troll a team. I mean, hell, even back in my Halo 2 days me and some friends would just mess around for fun (we stopped caring about our ranks at this point) and just got in a game and ran around with the flag. If I wasn't able to be killed by a team mate, that would have been far too easy lol

Fyi, I was only doing it because he asked it in a "willy wonka" formed question at the end of his first post. And cause the meme generator takes like 2 seconds lol. My most recent meme wasn't even trying. It was more of a simple response than anything else.

Not only are team kills less frequent than you're leading on, it's not the exact same thing, "bro." Let me take it a little further for you. Take the same scenario with the plasma grenade sticks, and include frag nades. While I run into the flag area, my team mates could just deck the area with frags and plasmas and rockets and get everyone off the flag point that isnt me. This, unlike the plasma sticks, is much more likely to be abused, because it's actually a strong and VERY easy tactic. The enemies are in the blood gulch base, our team is on top about to drop in. All we have to do is nuke the place with explosives while one guy drops in and throws the flag up. That's one situation out of several that are much less fair than "killing your team mates," especially when team killing is resolved after 5 seconds. They either do it once, and the game continues, or they do it twice and they get booted. Snipping the flag carrier 3 times isn't even possible. They would get booted after 2 kills, regardless of what you think the booting system is like. And I'm starting to see why you fail to understand the logic behind this. Yes, if someone is in the passenger seat and won't move, kill him. He's trolling. If someone sits there with the bomb and doesn't move, yes, kill him. He's trolling. Stuff like this almost "never happens" because friendly fire is on. If friendly fire was off, the ratio would be much greater, and in favor of me. You may or may not remember this (depending on how old you are...) In Halo 2, sudden death use to give you unlimited time, but with a later update they gave the sudden death a time limit, why? Because people knew of the exploit and they would sit with the bomb/flag and never let the time end. Even though this isn't directly associated with team killing, per say, it shows that the community will exploit things that can be exploited, just like how some people kill on the same team for whatever reason they have. It's not that team killing is logical, it's that it's a far BETTER outcome than what no friendly fire would give us. And if you still want to try and put ratios and statistics into this, you'd be even more wrong. Because last I checked, Team killing for a chance at ruining the game is less likely to succeed than no team killing and having someone sit with the bomb, resulting in ruining the game with 100% certainty for those on the same team. Wrong I never said friendly fire wasn't game breaking. You just decided to take my words out of context and negate the fact that I'm simply saying friendly fire is less game breaking than no friendly fire. As I stated before, you can't argue without all possible statistics. People exploit betrayals more than objectives BECAUSE friendly fire is on. If friendly fire was off, There would be more game breaking exploits that would be used more often than you realize. If you played Halo 2 since launch day, you'd probably know this. (Or if you played any online game for that matter). Any team killing that is punishable by a boot after simply 1 or 2 kills is much more justifiable than no friendly fire, simply because grieving the bomb is simply 100% game breaking, deciding the outcome of the game before it even started. You do realize that if someone was that dedicated to ruining your killionaire in Halo 4 (someone who was actually counting all the kills you had for, you know, whatever reason lol) they could just simply steal your kills instead. In both scenarios, this could be done. So this doesn't even hold ground. In fact, it's more likely they would kill the enemy before they would kill you, reducing how many warnings they have before they get booted from a betrayal lol And in response to all your memes, at least try to be consistent... You asked us to tell you why team killing in Halo added anything, and when I answered you made a meme saying.. "Oh, friendly fire isnt that game breaking?" "Oh, you think people exploit objectives more than betrayals?" Because obviously I don't think friendly fire ISNT game breaking in itself, and obviously there are more betrayal exploits than there are objective ones when you realize that most of the big game stopping exploits have been eliminated BECAUSE of friendly fire. So please...

Not to mention this system in itself is dumb, putting homophobia, racism and discrimination towards the mentally ill at the bottom of the priority list. If someone gets banned for saying an offensive term to women, then anyone who insults the mentally ill (aka, calling someone retarded, being one of the most frequent insults I know) should be perma banned as well. Does that seem realistic? No. And if that were to be followed by a permanent ban I bet half of the Halo population would be out 60 bucks.

There's nothing rude about playing a friends xbox while they sleep. Typically I'll have friends over and let them crash the night at my place (especially if they had a few drinks). You're looking past the big picture here. It could be something as easy as saying one word out of anger or context. As stated in my previous post (the parts you didnt decide to quote me on, interestingly enough) there are things people will say that just come off as offensive, whether they mean it or not. Another example, I have a black friend who says the N word sometimes, just in casual conversation like a lot of other black people do. Even if he said it under his breath over the mic, and it being the ONLY thing he said, would still perma ban me. Even with girls, someone could say an offense term out of anger under their breath, not mean anything by it PERSONALLY, nor directed at anyone specific, and still, perma ban for me. Hooray. Nope You say that as if it were actually that easy, when in reality it's not. As stated before in this thread, someone was banned for being accused of abusing the credit system. They wouldn't contact with him, they wouldn't tell him why they did it, and they didn't help him in the end. With feedback like that, paired with the fact that trying to differentiate two peoples voices over ONE word incidents (and over xbox live, which most people have crappy static-y headsets that make people sound pretty similar), is simply not accurate. And in fact, is one of the most unrealistic ways to find out what really went on, especially when you realize that they wouldn't even go to such lengths to begin with just to help someone from a ban after hearing about our friend in this thread. Right, but where you work you also talk to your boss face to face, and are responsible for everything you do, because, you know, it's a job. Controlling yourself in a public (real) place that you go to everyday and meet with the same employees everyday is a completely different scenario than being at home, on the couch, where other people can get a hold of your things, and where thousands of more potential outcomes could happen that makes an offensive word go out to the public. It's also an entirely different mentality that gets put on in the work place. That's like saying our old judicial system worked because everyone accused of a crime was being punished, at the cost of some innocent people. You're looking at the immediate outcomes without thinking critically at all. Keeping the system the way it is will, yes, ban racist/sexist people where they stand, but at the same time bans several innocent people who paid $64.64 (probably much more) for a game. While on the more logical side of dealing with this, giving a warning would do the same thing, but more. It would give innocent people another chance at playing the game, it would warn those who are purposely racist/sexist and ultimately give them a choice to either keep being racist/sexist or start playing the game without being mean (keeping a player in the matchmaking pool as well as eliminating anymore outbursts) or continue to be racist/sexist and then get banned, banning a sexist player while also keeping the innocent free and converting the wicked. If they choose to not be mean anymore, then you literally have the same outcome in that situation. a racist comment was said "once." And for those who choose to say it a "second" time, well... then i suppose they would deserve a ban hammer. Yet again you're ignoring the big picture and only taking into consideration the controllable outcomes. Last I checked, life happens. Whether we want it to or not. If a tree limb falls on my car and scratches it, I'd prefer the insurance. But let me be clear about this I am in no way saying that offending someone verbally is "ok" for someone to do. In fact, I go out of my way to call out those who do so in public. But to simply ban someone for life over something with so many potential outcomes is idiotic. If there weren't as many foreseeable outcomes, then yes, perma ban would be fine. But it's just simply not the right way to go. Exactly my friend. Things like this are too sporadic to simply turn a perma ban on. Literally, the ONLY thing making this not suitable for a permanent ban is the simple fact that there are way too many side factors to consider. I understand what you're saying RedStar, I really do, but it's just not a good enough choice to deal with a situation as complex as this. Especially in a time period where people watch stand up comedians (who have nothing better to joke about than racism). Someone repeats the joke to their friend sitting next to them would be banned for "life" over it. Hell, I'd even accept a week ban just to put them in time out, but an initial perma ban is just not realistic.

But then you get people who exploit the game in unrealistic ways. I remember one time me and some friends had a custom game with no friendly fire. My friends threw sticky grenades on me, I ran inside the base, blew everyone else up BUT me, and ran out with the flag to the mongoose. Trust me, team killing is fine. Sure people are annoying about betrayals, but they only get 1 warning (sometimes) before they quit. And normally I piss them off enough to kill me again so i can boot them lol Plus then you'd get people who would STAY in vehicles and never get out of them. This is literally game breaking, especially if someone from their team gets in the passenger seat, blocking it off from the flag carrier who needs to be there. Or even worse, some troll runs up and gets the flag, then hides with it. Your team would have NO way of getting it back without leading the enemy to the flag carrier somehow without them killing you first. But in the end, friendly fire just works. I feel like the reasons I just gave more than justifies it over the reasons you just gave. There's a difference between being annoying, and literally preventing your team from winning, JUST for the lulz. Hell, I could spawn in a bomb game, grab our bomb, and just stand there with it until our time runs out. Blasting music through my mic and jumping up and down just to annoy people.

No they wont. Why would they? If they are given a warning that they're account will be PERMAbanned from playing Halo 4 for saying another racist/sexest comment, then they won't do it again. They have no reason to do it again. And, if they actually DID do it again, then they would be banned. Ultimately, this gives people a chance to still play Halo 4, whether or not they slipped up or it wasn't even them saying it. Instead of trashing the player for good, they give them a chance to clean their act up. Because keep in mind, EVERYONE is human. A perfect example of this is when I use to use the word "***." A few years ago, "***" was simply a word used to describe people who were annoying ****** bags or jerks. But now it's become predominantly used as a hate term for gays. While I try to avoid saying it, it's literally wired in my brain, and yes, it DOES slip up sometimes. And the thing is, this is actually backed by science. Our brain has a collection of BILLIONS of brain neurons that link up to form algorithms for our mind to use, like habits, or anything second nature, so we don't have to think while we do it. Speaking is one of them (notice how you can just throw out words and sentences without thinking ahead of time). If someone is an ex-racist/sexest person or are around racist/sexest people, and they slip a word out of anger or for w/e reason, I still feel like it's not right to perma ban them. Sure, it might give a racist an extra chance at being racist, but think about the long run. If warnings were implemented, not only would you assure the freedom of the innocence, but you'd still be putting racist and sexest people on the spot. They can either stop now while they had their warning, or do it again and be banned, no longer anyones problem. Opposed to banning everyone left and right who says something offensive. You sit there and say "oh they deserve it!" because you only look at the small picture of it all. There is more to justice than punishing the wicked. You also have to assure the freedom of the innocent people too. Ergo, their method is flawed.

I keep forgetting when they have awards for games. I know Spike TV has an award giveaway thing but I don't remember it being THE official gaming award thing, like how E3 is THE official expo for games. I hope it hasn't already passed this year. I could see Halo 4 winning GOTY, mainly because it's more of a big reboot than any other game this year. Assassin's Creed III looks fun, but it looks more of the same, other than ship battles. And COD is literally the same thing but in the future. (I can see COD making a game even further in the future, and introducing jetpacks lol)

I heard that having both a doritos code AND a mountain dew code would give you even more double xp matches if you entered them in at the same time. Is this true? Could someone shed more light on this? I don't know the specifics at all... should I be buying an equal amount of both doritos and mountain dew to get the best value? Cause I'm not trying to spend a lot of money on these codes lol and I hope to get as much out of the ones I buy.

Just to try and get to level 50 as fast as possible for the new armor mods, I was thinking about using the "earn more xp" mod while doing a double xp match. Do these stack? Cause if so... that's a loooot of xp XD

Boarding hunters in the game has been thought of before but never implemented. I, personally, wouldn't like it. It's a cool feature, but it makes the mini-boss encounter a simple "X" "L" combo, instead of an actual mini-boss encounter. Maybe if they fine-tuned the hunter to have good defenses against someone boarding it, then it would add to the variety of challenges with the hunter.

The only way you're going to get your privileges back is if you keep calling Xbox and be persistent. Annoy them if you have to, you have a right to at this point. If you call with an attitude then people will start listening, cause they don't want to start losing customers, especially if you weren't actually in the wrong. And in response to an earlier post, don't listen to him... it wasn't you're fault. You clearly called up Xbox and they told you in confidence that you would not be banned. It was still risky, but that's their fault, not yours.\ EDIT: Oh ok, good XD

I think you're missing the point. Whether or not it's as easy as just "not saying anything," there are thousands of potential scenarios that could make this abused or just simply unfair. First scenario off the top of my head, a friend comes over and plays xbox while I'm still asleep or something and he says something sexest over the mic. then "I" get banned for "LIFE," without a warning or anything? I'm sorry, but it's simply a dumb punishment for something as simple as talking over the mic. What if I get falsely accused because someone on my team was sexest and they mistook them for me? Bam, over. No more Halo 4 for me. That sure is cool... All I'm saying is, there is a MUCH better way to handle this. When someone is sexest in real life, face to face, you don't just throw them in prison for life, you slap them on the wrist and go "HEY..... watch it, next time you won't be so lucky" then threaten to perma ban them, don't DO it right off the bat... I mean, think about the racism too. People sign up for Xbox Live and might slip a sexest/racist comment out and be perma-banned. Which, even though they may have done it on purpose, it's still not a rule EVERYONE is aware of. So just like that... they get banned lol for good. No second chance, at all? Not one?...

"Lifetime" ? If they are really banning people permanently for being sexist then that's dumb. I mean sure being sexist is wrong, but god damn... over doing it much?

wait, its in reach?? lol

People keep saying that Halo 4 brought back the bleed through effect. For those of you not familiar with this, think of Halo 2 and 3, when you could punch someone with half shield and kill them, the damage bleeding through the shield. However, I have yet to see any proof or confirmation of this at all, in fact I'm becoming a little worried it's not actually in... lol Can anyone confirm this with proof?

Says it was removed :/

No, that's the thing, this sale starts when Halo 4 is already out. Nevermind, sale already ended... lame >:C