gollum385

I dont think the credit system should come into it. For a start i agree in credits, but not as a ranking system, so that is irrelevant at this point. Of course it wouldnt be like normal forge mode, with all weapons being the same price. More powerful things would cost much more, so if you want a good weapon you have to save for it. Maybe also ideas for updrading a players starting weapon etc could be cool. As for weapons on map, if they are able to purchase standard weapons cheaply, i dont think this is necessary. Yes spawning weapons/ammo etc would be a 1 time placement, aswell as objects. Not sure about a limit, as if you want all 4 people to have the best stuff, you need to save up 4 times, probably won't happen often. As for weapon, was just a small idea. Would definately need to be a sentinel beam. As for having one at all times, i think if you destroy their monitor, you should be rewarded with a wait before it respawns. THerefore i feel like it should work like the vip system. You are going to play more than one game in it, so if you aren't the monitor in one game, or are another, it won't matter too much. It's the sort of gametype that would escalate quickly aswell, so wouldnt take too long Also like the idea of doing it for larger groups (like 8v8, 12v12) In that case the effect of one big weapon etc wouldnt have as big an effect, and as you have more people accumulating points and more people to spread it between it becomes more tactical. In order for that to have monitors who change the way a map plays, or change the outcome of a battle though, maybe a second monitor would be required to help with the larger amount of players.

SilentCo1, i can understand where you argument comes from. But at what point is multiplayer cannon? At what point to spartans fight eachother!? in halo 3, both spartans and elites fought eachother! Again seeing as flood are similar in size to spartan 2s, elites and brutes (because thats what they are made from). They too could be awesome playable characters, and in terms of custom armour be so customiseable! I've heard alot of things about there being no covenant no brutes elites etc in halo 4. Whilst i can understand why people think this, i cant imagine a halo without those people, but more importantly the weapons, espeically in multiplayer! If forerunners are in it, they too could be in multiplayer, but seeing as this is a place for awesome gameplay, i really hope they get multiplayer right and include previous weapons. THeres no reason other characters could be in it aswell. And all of the above (so 5 different equal sized characters, plus a 6th if you include heretics) could be possible. All would be equal sized, and have a huge number of custom options available armour wise. That would be so awesome, as the number of combinations for games would be so varied. Also it would take a huge amount of time to collect them all. I also like the idea of other playable characters, but not for general matchmaking, as their size etc would be different. As for balancing. I still don't know whether balanced, but different stats would be good or not. I'm thinking no for normal gameplay. Keep it like halo 3. But the option to limit a team to one race, or change the stats for an individual race would be awesome. It would be aweomse for things like multiteam when every team is a different race or something.

Yea definately sabers and the space level in reach was the main reason that myself and many other people have thought of an idea like this. But there is also the possibility of so many more vehicles. Pelicans, phantoms, spirits, long and shortswords, seraphs. Possibly even hawks or covered hornets. I'm sure other things could also be made too. This variety would make it a great series of games being possible. Maybe there could just be a space slayer game mode, with sabres vs banshees or whatever. The other benefit of this is these vehicles could be used in normal maps aswell (maybe 1 or 2 exceptions). People have been craving for driveable pelicans for so long!

Thanks for the comments guys. I defiantely agree the opportunity to tactically spam is sometihng which should be possible, even if it sacrifices later shots (like my methods). This sorts of method, plus the harsher way the bloom works, promotes skilled players who can act based on the situation, deciding when and when not to time their shots/spam.

The fact that the shield covers you entire body doesn't mean you therefore have to make it so hitting anywhere does the same damage. You could argue that the power supply for the shield being further away means that more shield power is needed to absorb headshots or it's distance means it's intensity is less, or any number of reasons. Take the example of my idea for weapon ballancing http://www.343industries.org/forum/index.php?/topic/369-weapon-damage-and-range-balancing/. Just because the idea might not make sense in some ways, if it makes the gameplay better, then who cares? It's not like this stuff is set in history, it's a fictional universe! As for armour, i disagree it would make sense for halo. I like the idea of tool kits instead of health packs if it was though. Therefore rechargeable health, but not rechargeable armour. If you take shots to the arm, that will be weaker, so if you shot there again it could do more damage to the arm, or maybe even go straight through it to the health? I dont really want it, but just thinking of a few ideas for it if it was. Not sure what the grenade debate is, but btoh frags and plasmas are too strong in reach. However in halo 3 i felt they were awesome. Obviously add some of the cool features that were included in reach, such as damage for hitting someone with a grenade, and a decreasing damage range (maybe means range can be a bit bigger than halo 3, like reach, but damage would be less)

I'd like to clarify that I think this system would be very good for gameplay, allowing for skill, but preventing any weapon for operating well outside it's designed range limits. I think that although this wouldnt be accurate in terms of what real bullets do, this system would balance gameplay, and i'm all for that over what is possible. You could even say the increase in damage is due to the increase in speed of the bullet, up until it's operating range, as it accelerates from the gun, then afterwards it's decrease in speed, and therefore damage due to decelleration from air resistance etc.

I think the other thing we must remember us that this is the future, with super soldiers using weapons. I think whatever the outcome, it should focus on how it makes gameplay feel, rather than what is realistic to real life.

I didn't know that much about gears 3's horde mode. I've got to admit i'm excited to play it.

Great to see most people don't think i'm crazy and agree!

Does anyone else have ideas for improvements on the system i proposed, or a system of their own they think would work better?

But the elites and spartan 3's in reach aren't balanced. That is why you only play as both of them in certain gametypes, such as invasion. I would be happy to have them for some gametypes etc, but for general matchmaking it should be like halo 3. Equal (or balanced) characters with equal size and hitbox ie brutes elites and spartans.

Yea things like this are always annoying when matchmaking. especially in social when you are just playing for fun, and it is spoiled. It is far too common an occurence, and unlike other games the other players suffer. Obviously this wouldnt apply to ranked, but in that environment the punishment for quitting is more severe, therefore less people are encouraged to quit.

Thanks for your contributions. interesting to see sandtrap is one of your favourites machinga. anyone agree? I'd always be up for new maps, but if they are like the ones in reach i would much rather have virtually all of the old ones.

Where did you hear news they are using dedicated servers. i doubt this would be the case, as it is expensive to maintain.

I still don't think armour would be very good, although if 2 people think it is a good idea then i'd be interested to see if other people agree? How would this system work? Obviously shields would recharge, but would armour, or health? The problem with armour is that it would mess up the gameplay, and make it confusing. In halo, once shields have popped, you're one shot. How many shots are you if you have armour? You recharge your health with a medpack in reach/ce, or just naturally in other halo's (better), but how do you recharge armour? I agree i very much disliked the spartan health model in reach. I much preffered the elite model with health which grows back completely. That is why i think a model like halo 3, but with slower recharging and visible health would be better than reach or halo 3. Interesting about your views of the spike grenade okage. I actually have thought about a delayed detonation, controlled by holding the left trigger, kind of like an alternate firing method like the grenade launcher. By holding the trigger, you are stopping yourself throwing new grenades, meaning it wouldnt be overly powerful. Once released, it explodes, maybe after a short time delay, so it cant just be used by campers hiding round a corner too effectively. Maybe the explosion could be slightly weaker than normal too. The way i think the spiker benefits is that it can stick to walls floor roof. How to make it so it also can compete against the plasma is by making it more powerful on vehicle damage, and the benefit above of a delayed explosion and it's ability to be stuck to any surface. Machinga, i completely disagree with your idea to lethalize frags. they are already way to overpowered.

I really hope there is a battlefront 3, your news about it being picked up by a new developer sounds awesome (please let it be good!) I don't think the issues of lag and map size etc would be too much of a problem. Battlefront 2 did it back in the day on xbox live. However i do agree player count should be higher (have a thread on this subject). So many people in favour of this, surely 343i must be able to understand things like this are what the fans want?!

A, sensing a lot of hate for a dual sword! I think the enrgy stave would be just as good as a sword, but it's longer length would actually mean it could contend with the shotgun (as the person will be further away, meaning the shotgun won't be quite as effective (not an overpowered reach shotgun either). Also a 2 hit strike would be like beatdown, but it would definately be quicker than a beatdown in terms of time, aswell as the fact it would have a far greater lunge. The jackal shield would require crouching to cover the whole body, that would slow you down, nullifying it's advantage. Of course standing up means you can still be hit, but at least your head (the area that should take more damage unlike reach systems) would be covered. I'd like to calrify dual wielding was not the main reason why reach's gameplay failed. In fact compared to the other big problems, such as poor maps, aa's and loadouts, a horrible ranking/level system, and horribly unbalanced grenades, aswell as a poor shield and health system, it was a minor issue. But dual wielding is something which has been a part of halo. Yea some people dislike it, but others like it, and it definately makes sense to have. I like how people refer to the fact it is good when you have no grenades, or reloading each one sperately so you always have a gun to fire. Definately larger weapons shouldnt be able to be dual wielded, and yes to a return of carbine and beam rifle, and brute shot, and battle rifle, and all that stuff! Also special abilities of dual wield weapons when single wielded was just an idea. larger reticule makes sense on its own or with this idea. However i think these abilities would be good as they allow the gun to handle differently, ie with a scope or better lunge or plasma burn etc, so there is a choice to make by the player as to what is best for that situation. Hope i covered everything!

While i could understand what bungie tried to achieve with aa's, they are not designed for halo, and spoiled reach. Sprint and evade. whilst cool ideas, basically are ways of speeding up a game which has slowed down dramatically since halo 1 and 2. Evade also makes it feel like gears, and that is one of the major problems of gears. The rolling about sprinting and using double beatdown/close combat weapons is frustrating. Armour lock is just flawed and the jetpack affects map design too much, as you must accomodate for it. Note maybe this is why reach's maps are generally so awful. And don't get me started on how they butchered camo! In fact if it wasn't for the fact I hate moving so slow, the only good aa is drop shield, which is basically a bubble shield anyway. AA's are not suitable for halo, as they mean that upon starting, people are not equal. Someone has sprint, someone has jetpack, halo was always about equality on spawn, which is why loadouts are flawed. Equipment is far superior. It can affect the gameplay, but cannot be used 24/7. Therefore it must be used tactfully. The fact that it has area effects also mean teamplay is involved, something which before reach was always key in halo, but wasn't at all in reach. Where and when should i use it to get the best effect. I can use the grav lift to get over the wall on high ground. My team mate is injured, i'll protect him with regen/bubble shield. The other thing about aa's is you spawn with them. Equipment and powerups required map control, something that again lacks in reach. aa's have a big impact on gameplay in reach. But i feel this has been a mainly negative effect, and they shouldn't feature in halo 4.

Thanks for that information. Is this something that could be reworked in terms of the networking code though? Obviously in it's current state this probably couldnt be done, but if other games like cod can do it i'm sure halo could.

Definately agree all previous dual wieldable weapons should be back. Like the idea of the smg from odst as a single wield weapon, although maybe it would just be a weak assault rifle? of course i am all up for multiple weapons in a range bracket. Bungies idea that things like the beam rifle shouldnt return in reach was stupid, i feel it was one of the more missed weapons in reach, as it meant the covenant had a limited armoury for the campaign. muted desire, i'd like to clarify i am talking about the power of the needler in halo 2, when it was dual wielded, rather than the one in reach. I think making the needler single wield was a big mistake. It was too powerful in halo 3, and whilst reach made it more balanced, i feel it should be dual wield. Again to make it effective as a single wield weapon, a special effect like the homing of the needles would be given to it when single wielded. This means although more needles are required, the extra accuracy helps it when single wielded. Of course even without the extra home in, the needler would be better dual wielded,although recoil/bloom or whatever would also make it slightly less successful hit ratio. Of course you would be firing twice as many bullets, so that means even without the accuracy you will still kill them quicker. Note you also lose the ability of grenades.

When you say normal levels, do you mean the standard 1-50? if so, is there a reason that my system doesn't appeal to you. As for xp, i think the xp system in halo 3 was good. It allowed players to show how much they had played, but also was based on winning, meaning those with a high xp had to at least be good enough to win often. I think my exp system is good as whilst it does offer exp just for playing etc, it offers more exp for those who win, but also those who do well, irrelevant of which team they are on. This means people who are better will be shown to be better. Along with other stats like win %, k/d ration on your service record it will be a great way for people to see how good a person is. If in objective gametypes the exp is also awarded based on things like mvp (most flag captures etc) it is an opportunity to encourage people to play the gametypes properly, rather than just playing for kills or whatever.

I didn't realise the systems were that much difference. I do think the double beatdow has gotten a bit too common now, needs to be pulled back a bit.

Thankyou for your detailed input. Great to see a real enthusiasm for an idea like this. Sorry to offend you, but i do think spartan 3's are less superior to spartan 2's. Spartan 2's are genetically enhanced to kick ass. Spartan 3's were pumped full of steroids and created as a cheaper alternative to spartan 2's (correhttp://www.343industries.org/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=63&t=313ct me if i'm wrong). Therefore i think spartan 2's are stronger and physcially superior to spartan 3's. I'd like to confirm that although spartan 3's would be cool for some gametypes, their size difference in comparison to the base 3 i am proposing would mean that for standard matchmaking i don't think they should be in it Like your ideas for suggestions on how to balance the 3, but make them slightly different. Not sure if accuracy should be something which is affected. I was thinking maybe just slight differences in their physical traits. Melee damage (brutes better, spartans worse), movement speed (elites better, brutes worse), shield size (spartans better, brutes worse), health size (brutes better, spartans worse), jump height (elites better, spartans worse) sre just a few examples i could think of. Obviously these stats and other would all need to be balanced, but to clarify these would be small differences, so whilst they would have some effect on gameplay, it wouldn't alter the gameplay by a huge amount.

This is more based on the star wars battlefront rather than a space gameplay, but star wars battlefront had an interesting standard gametype. Focusing less on the use of ai and more of how the gametype work, both team had a number of reinforcements. These reinforcements could only respawn at set locations, determined by who controlled the territory. both teams tried to capture these reinforcement points. If a team controlled all of them, the other team had until all of it's team were killed. Otherwise the game was over. I think gametypes like this and many others are all possible in halo. One of the things halo has is a vast sandbox and custom options unrivalled in all the other big games out there. I would love to see a whole new host of gametypes in the new halo, and the custom options to allow for the creativity the halo community is renowned for.

Another gametype i have just thought of. Rather than be defending from waves of firefight, or defending objectives (such as generators etc), which are all great, how about a objective type mission (probably more similar to spec ops than firefight). Basically you have an objective like plant a bomb, destroy generators, capture a flag etc against ai. This could be on firefight multiplayer maps or maybe on campaign maps (would make sense to reuse them). This would be a whole new gametype which could like firefight have so many different options, from the weapons you start off with and the enemies you face to all the different objective types. Maybe even you could have games which had ai, kind of like gears or cod customs. I don't think this should be the standard in matchmaking (ie replacing people who drop out etc) but for customs and some cool fun gametypes would definately be good. this like my previous post are moving towards ideas for ai based gameplay, although it would be more limited than normal multiplayer, in terms of player count etc. Would like to hear people's views on this aswell as the main topic.