gollum385

thecobaltocean thanks for your comment. I too didn't find the bloom terrible in reach. However i did feel there were a few issues with it, and thought my idea would balance out the negatives of it that i thought were present (spamming can lead to luck, the bloom doesnt go big enough, and the fact i felt that there were not many tactics involved with it (ie everyone must fire at similar fire rate to guarantee the kill)). Obviously i may have misjudged a few of those options, but like anything out there improvements can be made, and i think the reach system was defiantely not perfect. Baykem thanks for your comments, but i don't think we can assume bloom is not in reach. A new engine wouldn't be made just to get rid of bloom, for a start, new graphics, new physics, new animations and potential features would all be reasons to make a new engine. I agree many people disliked it, but this thread shows that many people like it. As for saying if there smart, there are many features that probably will go into the game which are not smart: things which are either direct copies of previous halo games (mainly reach imo, where they will view that as the most successful game (because of sales)) or things they might take out or not put back in. This is my biggest worry about halo 4, and whilst the chances of them listening to us are slim. If enough people get behind all the ideas on this forum, we get lots of votes in the polls people make, and through ideas and criticism make great ideas, maybe they could be in halo 4. It is early in development, and now is a better time than ever to suggest them.

Rafter, thanks for backing me up. Something that is a bit frustrating on forums is suggesting an idea and people having a few without explaining it. I'm all for my ideas being ripped into if it is flawed, but an explanation on what is wrong with it, or why other systems are better and improvements would help! l mj l thanks for your comments. Interesting to see your views on it. I can completely agree that you would not want to slow down gameplay. I too am definately not up for that. In fact I think halo reach was too slow in comparison to halo 3, which became much slower than halo 2. It needs to go back a step in my opinion. My system that I am proposing may sound more negative than it is. What I am trying to promote is the occasional 'controlled' spam, think double shot in halo 2. This leads to short term gain, as you get 2 quick accurate shots, but the speed at which you took the shots means the bloom is larger than if you paused. Again if you took a third shot at this speed, the bloom would get even worse when i say recharge/bloom size. I mean that the rate at which it increases. In reach, every shot makes the bloom grow x amount. If the bloom is already y amount in, then the shot will make it size x+y. What i am proposing that if you do the same, the bloom won't grow a fixed amount for each fixed shot, but will grow more and more the bigger the bloom is (this kind of exponential rate of growth). This means that consistent spamming would lead to a huge bloom (the bloom not having such a small limit being a factor), with a very long recharge time. The system i propose (again this is why i select the option with tweaks) would mean that initially, the first few shots do not grow as quickly as halo reach, so in fact it is easier to get the first 2 (maybe 3 but probably not) shots off quickly with little punishment in terms of bloom. However your 3rd/4th and 5th bullets would suffer at increasing rates should you try to shoot quicker than the bloom lets you. This would allow for tactics in that when you choose to shoot faster/slower/ at the recommended rate of firing will determine your success and failure in battles. I'd like to stress this wouldn't affect the dmr at mid ranges, unless you persistently spammed the shots. In fact for the first couple of bullets, the second (maybe 3rd) shots would be more accurate than the current situation. I'd also like the br to be in halo 4, and again the bloom would only get worse if you shoot very quickly. With bullet spread that would make the punishment of bloom a bit more severe, making it less useful at a closer range. Would like to hear your opinions on this, whether i clarified the situation or not, and whether that improves how you view my idea (or makes it worse). Again if people would like to suggest tweaks on my idea id welcome them.

Does anyone have any ideas on the 'special abilities' the current dual wield weapons could have to give them an edge when single wielded over when being dual wielded? Can anyone think of other dual wield weapons they would like to see in halo 4?

Great to see so many people in favour of this idea, whether like mine or with slight tweaks.

Other ideas for the animated assasinations slaughtered eliminated slayed finished dispatched butchered sliced/knifed do people prefer any of these to executed? for those who voted in favour of reach, would a name like this make you change your mind? any other ideas from people is welcome.

Is there anyone who thinks there should be a different number to the one's suggested. I know one of the people who commented wanted 20 player capacity, would be interested to see if there are other figures that people would like to see.

Interested to see if there are a few people who are not fussed/not sure either way. Are there improvements to my proposed system that would make you like it. Is there any reason that you wouldnt care either way (ie what positives and negatives in the idea make it not a gread/terrible idea)?

Thanks for the postitive voting. It is interesting to see that my other thread on forge battle (a forge/matchmaking gametype_ viewtopic.php?f=16&t=635 has alot more people disliking the idea than thi forge/firefight gametpye. Do people have ideas as to why this might be? Do people have ideas of what they'd like to see in this gametype should it be made? Ideas on what structures should be available to the forger etc.?

Thanks for the voting. It is nice to see that people think that my/a similar idea would be a good way to implement this system in reach. I'd like to see if people can spot flaws in my idea, or how it could be improved so that it would be the system best for halo 4.

I posted my own suggestions as how i think the ranking system/exp etc should work in halo 4. Check out my thread viewtopic.php?f=16&t=626&start=10 would like to see if people think my idea is as good as the previous systems, or if not, what could be done to make it that good.

Would people like to see the return of spike/flame grenades? Are there other grenades people would like to see? Obviously if there are 6 types of grenade, that would be annoying for matchmaking. But if yo were limited to 2/3 types of grenade in one map i think it would be interesting to have some strange grenades, especially for special playlists and firefight/campaign.

Have created a thread similar to this, which also covers health and shield systems. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=687 I would like to see a return of spike/fire and the intorduction of others. Maybe in terms of map play you can't have more than 3 or something, but the idea of some unique types for campaign or firefight / some playlists sounds cool. Definately should be halo 3 power, and i definately like the idea of a higher capacity of grenades like halo 2.

Interested to see someone voted for 64 players. Why do you think 64 would be the best capacity to raise it too. I am definately up for an increase in player count, but do you think that 64 might change how halo plays if the were 32v32 battles. A person's input, even if great may not have the same impact as now, or if the player count was only raised to 24/32. Obviously in this case there could also definately be networking issues i feel, But thanks for your honest opinion.

I guess i can agree with what you are saying TxSpartanO07. would be interested to know which option you picked on that basis then? It seems about 2/3 of the people agree with my side of the story. I'm interested in the third that are in favour of reach, why you prefer those names over the halo 3 ones. If it is the execution name i have generated, is there another name that would make you prefer that option?

Thanks kamkid for you comments and ideas. Glad you like my idea so much. I agree that i'd like to see all 3 in matchmkaing, whether they be completely the same, or slightly different, but balanced (unlike elite and spartans in reach). The idea of infection involving the flood does seem appealing from a graphical perspective, maybe it would add to the suspense if you hear the scream of the flood when the zombies get closer to you? I also agree that spartans and elites aren't the only guys in the war. I think you have to be careful, as elites spartans, and brutes are veyr equal in size and physical characteristics (roughly) in comparison to other characters. So i agree it would be cool to have odst, marines, hunters, grunts etc being playable for some gametypes/playlists, but make sure for most of them the normal 2 (hopefully 3) are the only options.

Thanks for your comments. I'd like to point out only halo 2 and 3 had dual wielding (not ce, also in the trilogy). However master chiefs new armour allowed him to dual wield, or at least explained why he couldnt before. Unless his armour goes backwards in halo 4 (which would be stupid) then it should be in. I think like many of the ideas i and other people have proposed, there may be things that people dislike, but other people do like. If the game is just adding more features, then whats the harm. What i think makes my idea good for both sides of the argument is that the weapons have advantages when single wielded, meaning they can be used on their own should it suit those people that don't like dual wielding. For those who don't mind sacrificing use of grenades, those abilities and maybe accuracy for more bullets, and like the idea of cool weapon combos (smg sword etc) and the ability to fire more bullets, then as long as it's balanced (my idea tries to achieve that), then what is the harm?

thanks halo 4 opst for your comment. With regards to your opinion, could you give more detail into why you think it would suck? Is there anything that could be done to it to make it good in your opinion (a few tweaks maybe?). Be interested to see if you are someone who uses forge at all, as i'm sure this would maybe not appeal so much to people who just play campaign/matchmaking, and just want to play normal slayer etc. Many people saying it's a good idea but needs tweaking. Would anyone care to suggest what tweaks these would be? Something that i just thought of that may appeal to people who dislike the idea. What if there were items you could purchase as the monitor which were destructable, or that could be placed tactically in areas of the map (note all items would probably need to be normal physics mode as opposed to phased (maybe fixed ok)). Imagine if there was the pit, and it's a game of oddball. What if the monitor could tactically purchase a wall to place in front of the entrance from one of the bases (sniper towers). This would completely change how the map would play. The other team monitor may then need to think about placing something like a gravlift next to the gap in the wall by the bridge, or if the wall is destructable therefore consider setting his team up with rockets. I think this gametype would allow a whole new battlefield in terms of a halo game. Gears has maps which change throughout a game, impacting the battlefield, like an avalanche or razor sharp hail which means you must take cover. Whilst i don't necessarily think halo should have this (although would be a cool thing if you could implement it) i think this gametype would prevent an environment which is constantly changing, requiring both teams to change how they approach the situation, or the tactics they make. I'm a bit suprised, as i thought people would be really keen on this idea. Is it because the idea itself is flawed, or does it just need a few tweaks on my ideas for people to be interested in it?

Thanks for your comments. I agree ksharp5, that that was the problems i found with it. That is why i suggested the improvements above. It actually punishes spammers, but due to it's increasing rate of expansion, means there are tactics involved in when you should time every shot, and when you should get off a couple of quick shots etc. thanks kyle k for your comment. Is there any particular reason you hate it? Would the options i proposed make it any better, or would it still be rubbish?

Yea it was fun to just load it up and play. However the feeling of star wars battlefront 2, when you are fighting other players (and ai, not sure if that would also need/ be wanted in this playlist) is a completely unique feeling, something i haven't experienced in another game. The addition of 2 teams, both with objectives seems like something most people would enjoy to play.

Yea i can agree there are good points. But i loved the element that equipment provided in that it was on the map. It required teamwork to get and utilise effectively. The camo and overshield were a fundamental part of maps. the halo reach camo aa ruined camo, and was one of my least favourite aa's (along with armour lock).

Yea i completely agree rafter. In all my posts i try to give people the option to say they dislike it, but again I hope that is there personal preference rather than them thinking it wouldnt work in game/other people wouldn't enjoy it. People who have voted that way i would lvoe to hear their opinions. And yea i completely agree. With all the gametypes that have ever been in halo, people have suggested such as these, the ability for custom options (something which has grown alot in the last few games and i would expect to grow further) should allow all sort of subgametypes to be formed, and peoples creativity allowing for awesome custom gametypes being made by people which could be unleashed into the matchmaking system.

Thanks for the comments guys. JoshuaEastham, i completely agree, i remember seeing a vidoc from bungie with an elite killing a marine with dual swords, and it made me so excited! The idea of dual swords swords sounds so good to me, and with an energy stafe replacing a single wield sword, and actually giving the sword to be potentially better than the shotgun sounds like a good way to mix up the gameplay to me! Rumerboy, i completely agree that halo was the original main game to utilise dual wielding. The other thing that makes it unique over games like cod, is you can actually choose what weapons to dual wield, and can also single wield them. teken, i agree it would strike me as strange if the chief could no longer dual wield. I think it would be a shame too. I know some people don't like it, but i have fond memories of pumping a brute full of dual needles in halo 2, or emptying a clip of dual smg's / spikers in halo 3, and that awesome feeling of reloading (halo 3 allowing for seperate reloading of each weapon).

For the people who aren't keen on the playlist, or think it needs tweaks t be perfected, can anyone think of what these are?

Glad people generally agree that a changeup like this would be welcome in matchmaking, although it may need a few tweaks from my ideas to be really good. Does anyone have any suggestions for what those things would be? (aimed at people who voted saying it could be good if tweaks solved)

Nice to see most people agree with me! Not sure if it's because i've played all the games before but there definately is something wrong with how it looks in reach!