gollum385

Good to see that the general consensus is for some sort of increase, whther it be just a few more players or double the player count.

Thanks baykem for your post. Would you like to ellaborate on what you liked about those 2 systems over the other systems? Which parts of each do you like most?

Some good ideas in there rafter. I think something that people should be careful of though is creating too many playlists or options which are similar to other games. Whilst i'd like custom options to allow that sort of thing to be generated, you have to remember what the core features of a game should be, and i'd rather 343i get those right than add too many alternate gametypes etc. I loved things like vip and eliminatio, and many gametypes from 3 and reach that never really appear in the mm system anymore, and i'd worry more about reintroducing things like this and getting them right, than adding gametypes similar to other games, even if the ideas are quite cool. Thanks

l mj l thankyou for your input. Obviously many of the votes favour the reach system, something which actually suprises me, as i got the impression many people disliked it. I don't think my idea is set just to weaken the pistol and dmr. In fact if anything it would affect things like the ar. I am also promoting controlled spamming (allowing a few quick shots for short term gain in terms of firing rate, but the compensation of less accuracy for later shots (unless you pause), and punishing uncontrolled spamming. As for this whipping the shots thing, i have never heard about it, and it is very interesting to hear that people can do that. This is optimzing the system given to you, but people have done that with other games and there systems (think doubleshot in halo 2). Are there any ideas of my system you like, or anything that could be done to reticule bloom as it is to improve it? Thanks again for your constructive criticism.

Baykem, interesting that when they join it gets laggy. Can't say I play too many custom games, so haven't experienced this problem. Indeed I agree that if it did cause a huge problem to others then it wouldnt be that great, but i'm sure if other games can have join in progress the networking could be reworked. Thankyou rafter for your input.

I take it you mean in black ops, where outside of games you can pay to upgrade weapons? or in nazi zombies where you pay for guns, open doors etc? I guess these ideas are similar to it, but i think saying my idea is just a cod copy requires looking into it a bit much. My gametype is mainly about making a firetype playlist where rather than starting with everything and surviving, you start with next to nothing, and so have to carefully plan what you buy/forge to make you be able to survive, as well as the survival process, giving firefight a new and unique twist.

I completely agree. This sounds like they have basically gone "This is what halo reach had, lets just use that, maybe add one or 2 things". That is definately not what i want halo 4 to be about. I want them to take the best bits from every game and then build on that, with their own unique blend. I know it's early to say, but i feel this is the beginning of a very bad slope for people's hopes of what the game will provide. I mean i know i will still buy the game, so microsoft will still get their bucks, but i would still be severely dissapointed if it is a reach gameplay remake. I personally don't mind some of the aa's but also dislike many aspects of them, and much preferred equipment. It is obviously the case that microsoft have seen that reach was the most successful game in terms of sales, that they think that is what everyone wants/ means they can appeal to the widest audience. Definately dissapointed by this news, but again, we'll just have to see how it pans out.

Reticule bloom was a controversial subject amongst halo fans in halo reach. Whilst I could see there idea (reduce the chance of people spamming the trigger), i feel it was implemented poorly. For a start, the size the reticule bloomed to still allowed for people to achieve kills whilst spamming. However i think that reticule bloom has potential, but needs a few tweaks. 1) the bloom grows slowly at first, but starts to grow at a much quicker rate when you spam too often. In halo 2, the double shot glitch was a system which allowed you to fire 2 shots veyr quickly (quicker than normal), but unless you changed weapons there and back, suffered a longer reload time. This meant you could get 2 quick shots in when it mattered, an interesting concept. If bloom was around I think this decision would be cool. Do i make a couple of quick shots, sacrificing the bloom on my third shot (as i shot the first 2 faster than i should have), or time my shots. This sort of decision making would affect the gameplay of players, and make the br/dmr or whatever weapons be able to behave slightly differently by choice, rather than every shot having to be timed perfectly. Also when the bloom retracts, it should retract quickly for small blooms, and slower for bigger blooms. This again stops spamming being an option, but if you do make a couple of quick shots, whilst you will need to wait longer for the third shot to be as accurate, it won't be anywhere near as long as if you spammed for 8 shots beforehand. 2) the bloom should be able to become much larger. Too often was the bloom for a pistol still small to mean you miss when up close to an enemy. This meant you could quickly spam the pistol before a beatdown (or the recoil means you land a headshot), making the ar useless in comparison I feel. If the bloom became much larger for excessive spamming (so it would be a minute chance of a hit, rather than just a lower percentage) it again would make the system alot better. Basically dont punish a couple of tactical spams here and there, just excessive spamming. I will also be making a thread on how I think weapons could be set up so they don't become 'unbalanced' (think br being the all in one weapon, or the pistol in the example above) and how that could have an interesting impact on gameplay. Please vote in the poll which system you prefer, and if you don't like my system, what is wrong about it (is it just cus you hate the bloom!?). Also any improvements to my bloom system would be appreciated, if you do think it would be a good feature to implement in halo 4.

Apologies Baykem if I have copied a thread you posted, I haven't done this intentionally, i have merely been creating threads off a list i have of things i'd like to see in halo 4. What was the general consensus from your thread? I'd be interested to see if people are saying the same things, as if everyone agrees on this, it would be wise for 343i to look into it.

A system which has changed in every halo game. Halo ce had very strange trajectory of grenades, and a very long plasma grenade detonation (it also made it so all grenades in an area detonated after an explosion). The shield system had health, which only regenerated with a health pack. Halo 2 and 3 had similar shield systems, with no health. The grenades in halo 2 were weaker (you could have 4 of each), and in halo 3 (even though there were spikers) you could only have 4. Halo reach brought the return of health, although it returned to the neraest third upon shield recharges, health packs and very powerful grenades. The elites had recharging health. The shield was unique in reach in that only when shields were popped could damage to your health be done. Also it should be noted when shields were up, damage to the head wasn't more than the body unlike previous halo games. I would like to know which systems they preffered from each game, and what they would like to see in halo 4. Other ideas for these systems are also welcome, and views on my version below also would be appreciated. For grenades, they were definately too powerful in reach. I don't mind about trajectory, but for me the halo 3 grenades were awesome. A well placed grenade would take down the shields (and just the shields) of an enemy, rather than reach, where having half shields and full health would still kill you. Grenades were also in alot more supply than reach, meaning they were more a fundamental part of gameplay, which should be the case seeing as they are part of the combat triangle. I like the idea of having 3/4 of each grenade type though, or/and a return of the spike grenade (with some tweaks) or another new and interesting grenade (probably not flame grenades though), even if these are limited in terms of use (i imagine a spike grenade that you could hold to determine detonation time, and i liked the fact it is good at doing damage to vehicles and can stick to enemies/walls and the floor) note if there are more grenade types on a map may need to limit total number to be 2. Note i do like the idea of explosions having a decreasing damage radius, the grenades doing damage when you hit an opponent, and being able to shoot grenades thrown or on the floor (maybe not allow explosions to trigger all grenades in an area though). For the health system. I disliked the halo reach model. It was reasonable for some gametypes, and maybe if it could be customised i could accept it, but for things like swat it spoiled it in my opinion. However I like the idea from reach/ce that health is visible, unlike 2 and 3, and that people should be a bit weaker if they survive a battle. I therefore propose that the health system should work like elites in reach. Once shileds are down you start losing health, but once your shields recharge, so does your health. It would take longer than halo 3, so you will be disadvantaged, but after say 30 seconds all health will be recovered. Possibly health packs could return to help with this. This would mean at first you are disadvantaged, but overall you are not punished for surviving for a long time, unlike swat in reach. The shield system. I personally dislike the shield system in reach. I particularly dislike the headshots being worth the same damage as body shots, as the skill and risk of trying to get headshots should reap a larger reward. I think that the shield system should work kind of like both reach and halo 3. When your shields pop (say if you had 10 points of shield left, and did 30 points of damage), only half the remaining points of damage should transfer to the shields (so rather than 20 points of damage to health like halo 3, or 0 like reach, it would be 10). This would mean that beating down would require precise timing to ensure the kill, but if you were half a second out you wouldnt be completely punished, as some of the oppponents health would suffer. Also I do like the idea of fall damage, and being stunned, but maybe as master chief is stronger, maybe not as significant. Again would love to hear people's views on this, as it is an area of halo that has changed significantly, and i feel will again.

I think the point people have made is correct. Lets focus on gameplay, not armour effects/the armoury. Most of those sound cool, but they can be quite annoying, especially now everyone has started to get them. I think the gimmick starts to wear thin after a while, and unlike reach I want halo 4 to be a game which i play over a long period of time, and hearing children scream after every kill would begin to get a bit tedious.

Yea definately lag is a big issue. I actually had an idea that i thought would be good, and was going to make a thread about it, but i will put it here. Not sure if it is technically possible, or would actually help much, but here it is: Rather than one host, that everyone communicates with, there is a host for each team (for a 4v4). I the event of more people, or for 16v16 if it was around, there would be more of these hosts. Basically if one of these hosts quits, then someone else from that group of say 4 people will become host. During that time however, host migration is not needed, as everyone will act of off the other/another host. Again i'm nt sure if this would benefit the network, as the lines of communication could potentially be longer. But especially in the event that these groups of 4 were based on people closest together globally, or make it so each team has the first and second, fourth and third, fifth and sixth, eigth and seventh best connections respectively (or a combination of this/other ideas), then at least people will be connected to a good host, or have good connection to some of the players, and then use this host to communicate with the others, eliminating some of the problems with poor connections. Again ideas on this concept (anyone who has a good understanding of networks input is welcome) and how it is good bad or how it could be utilised in a way that would improve matchmaking would be welcome. One of the main advantages i can see from this is that more hosts would help spread the load for networking especially in larger matches like 16v16, and host migration would be slightly improved. I'd like to point out that while many would want dedicated servers, i don't think this would be an option for halo 4 (although it would be good) as they are expensive to run and maintain.

What is the BPR Rating? How does the system work. What is different from reach/halo3/my proposed idea?

Kyle K i completely agree. I don't know why they changed it in the first place but every time I see pummeled for a beatdown, and the beatdown/assasination in the wrong place, it just makes me feel a bit frustrated that they changed something perfectly good.

Thanks for all the positive voting.

Assailant, can you please specify what weapons you think are too strong already (i guess in terms of dual wielding). If you think of the mauler, I said nerf it. If you think of the sword, it is underpowered, and making it dual wieldable would make it probably more powerful than the sword, but a) you lose the power of grenades, and getting dual wield swords wouldnt be common. As for stealing ideas from other fps games, i guess you are just referring to the jackal shield and the cod riot shield? I'd like to point out that the jackal shield has been in all halo games, well before mw2, and I am just stating a way to implement this as a dual wieldable weapon. My idea to make dual wielding more balanced is for the weapons to be stronger as single wield, meaning they have their unique uses there, with special characteristics, but obviously when dual wielding you gain the ability to shoot 2 weapons at once, whilst losing these abilities, and probably having worse accuracy aswell slightly, and the ability to throw grenades. Thecobaltocean, thanks for your positive comments. I realise the dual wield sword is a strange concept to some, but with the addition of the energy stave (thanks for letting me know the name), it would make sense to make them different, and maybe they will actually be useful over a shotgun when dual wielded, plus make sword combat interesting. As for blocking with a sword, i think there could be a variety of combos you could do with them which would make them act differently. Ideas could be left and right triggers does one thing, left or/and right trigger and beatdown doing another, or timing them differently (left then right etc). That could mean blocking could be done, or big lunges or to quick slashes etc, making it an interesting concept for games. with the energy stave, the role of a covenant close combat weapon with one hit kill is still there. I too love the smg and spiker, the feeling of unloading them on halo 3 is awesome. I always remember the smg plasamrifle halo 2 combo too. jonmoon. I agree that dual wielding isn't people's favourite concept, but most people would disagree that you are saying halo 2 and 3 are not awesome. In fact most people rate halo 2 multiplayer way above reach. I know that halo 2 missed the ar, and mainly they don't use dual wielding, but if a feature like this was available, and as i said above, gives each dual wieldable weapon an advantage when single wielded (meaning it is more useable as a single wield weapon in comparison to previous games) then surely this feature would just add to gameplay, rather than spoiling it?

AHP MonsteR, i don't think join in progress is a system entirely limited to Cod. For a start it is present in custom games. All i am saying is that for social, a system which is based on people wanting to get into games quickly and have fun, something like this would be a good addition, as it would allow for matchmaking to be sped up significantly. An example is an experience earlier I had on reach. I was trying to play btb. We got up to 15 players, but there was no 1 person who wanted to play btb (who wasn't already in a game). We waited for a good few minutes until one of the people in our game who was a single player left, then it instantly started the map selection as a 7v7. What if the games started as soon as there was 6v6 say. Then people can join when requested. It could even start as a 8v7, and then when someone tries to find a btb game it could set them up. This system is not like cod as you can vote to join the map, and it will only be available for games under half distance. It also removes the disadvantages teams come under from people quitting/losing connection/being booted, meaning games can be balanced and fun. How many games are ruined by people quitting. Note this wouldnt affect the rank system, something which definately isn't in cod. I am definately not a cod fan, but a system like this would be benficial to the halo matchmaking system, which tbh is one of the slower systems out there.

Yea i think the thing that everyone would be worried about would be if it was too laggy, and i wouldn't like that. It's also the case that for bigger battles there are usually more bandwidth hungry aspects aswell, such as using vehicles, mass explosions, or the maps themselves. I would love 16v16. It would mean large battles would be awesome, but it's a size which wouldn't mean maps have to be made at a much greater size. I think anymore would be too hard to do in terms of lag. If that wasn't possible I think 12v12 would be the next best option. In fact many of the larger sized maps (avalanche, sandtrap, boneyard) could probably easily handle 12v12 anyway. It's gametypes such as invasion that would most benefit from the ability to handle more players, aswell as games like griffball (maybe) and zombies and customs. Also allowing firefight to have more players, even if it just 8, or more campaign players would also be desireable. I apologise for not having a 20 person option. I didn't want to have too many options. I think the main point here is that everyone is for an increase in the size, even if it just small, but also make sure performance isn't affected. Something like this would be a good way of revolutionising halo multiplayer, without changing many of the core mechanics.

What do you mean when you say if you lose a few games you lose an exp? Does that refer to quitting/losing connection, or losing a level in ranked?

Thanks for the comments. I'd like to point out that playable characters such as grunts jackals hunters would only be for specific gametypes, not all matchmaking. For general matchmaking i am saying that aswell as a return of elites and spartans, brutes, who are a similar size etc should also be playable. Maybe this would be for all gametypes, and they are all identical, or just slight differences which might make them play slightly differently but fairly (depends on what people would prefer). It could also be in a similar style to halo reach, where you only play as one type in a team. Personally I like the idea of species specific gametypes, and giving them differences if necessary, like invasion in halo reach, but i also like the general gameplay having different characters too, like halo 3 rather than halo reach.

It would also be awesome to be able to forge firefight maps, not just in the game but outside. Firefight is something which does get repetitive after a while, and i'd love to see if there were more custom options and forgeable maps what people could come up with.

One of the smallest but in my opinion a strangely frustrating aspect of halo reach is the names of the combat things. Beat down has now become pummeled, which i think is the worst decision ever assasination has become beat down, to add to the confusion and the animated killings are called assasinations for one, the 'beat down' medals contain ninjas, who assasinate, not beat down! My soltuion is simple, change it back beat down assasination, and make the animated killings (which are quite cool) called executions, as effectively that is what you are doing to the opponent. Do people agree? If people have a better name for the animated killings, or if they like the reach version a better name for pummeled i'd love to hear it

I have a sneaky suspicion, that aslong as master chief is not alone is this mission (which at this moment in time we can assume he is), Johnson could make a return. I think people might take it a bit weirdly, but if they made it humourous enough it would be awesome to have him back. Maybe if there are spartan's on this shield world (if that is what it is), then there will be one akin to johnson. But yea would be awesome to have him. I wouldn't mind him making another legendary escape!

Nice to see people generally approve of this idea. Is there anything people think would have to be done for it to be successful, or gametypes that would benefit from it. What do people think of other playable characters, like jackals marines (maybe even hunters) for unique playlists.

Yea it would be great. I feel even the current generation of maps are a bit bigger than the amount of players they can cope with. For example each iteration of blood gulch just gets bigger and bigger, and boneyard was huge, especially for a 6v6 invasion. I think 12v12 should be the minimum they try to achieve with 4. I think 16v16 would be awesome though. It would make big team and invasion gametypes very interesting, and i think any more would be difficult to achieve in terms of networking. The epicness of larger battles and how it would work in terms of how a team/inividuals perform would be very interesting and a whole new aspect to the halo game.