gollum385

krazyphil, i'd first like to thankyou for your constructive and insightful criticism. Is there any reason why you don't like dual wielding / the ideas posted?

Thanks for the positive comments. It seems people who vote think this is a good idea. What gametype are you thinking of from cod which this is similar to may i ask? What do people think is needed to make this gametype even better?

Yea i think a weapon would be useful for the monitor, probably a sentinel beam of a splazer, just so there is some sort of defence. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the most effective thing. rafter, i like the idea that the monitor is restricted to half a map. Maybe not quite half (like each team has 2/3rds, so at least the monitor can help people pushing forward), this would stop the monitors messing eachothers things up, except from at the front. I also think the fact something can be placed once and that is it, and doesn't appear until it is placed is a cool idea, as i'm sure someone would be opposed to my view. I mean if both could be possible that would be great, but maybe from the sense of balance this is a better alternative. I also made a forge/firetype gametype forum post which talks about an idea. Maybe these ideas would also need to be carried across. There are people who wouldn't be interested in this gametype. are there reasons for this (why wouldnt you be interested in playing it). Is there any aspects of the idea you like, or is there anything that could be done to the gametype to make it more appealing to you? I think it would be a gametype which uses the forge feature in halo in an entirely new direction, during actual matchmaking, leading to new and interesting gameplay.

I like the idea of People setting up custom games for other people to play. I don't think it should be like normal matchmaking social games, where people pick a playlist and vote. But maybe a cool search option (think of the searching feature for halo reach for files). You pick what gametype, map type or whatever criteria you want, and then it will search all published games for matches. It wouldn't necessarily require maps or gametypes approved by 343i, and wouldnt punish for quitting games or anything, it would just be like a custom game which you can allow anyone to join. Would be a great way to meet new people online, and also to get your own maps/playtypes broadcasted into the open. It is often too hard to get a cool map or gametype playtested or get a good name from people, and this would definately help.

Thanks for the positive comments. Is there anything people can think of that would go well with this. A new vehicle or cool gametype?

Thanks for the comments. I like the idea of cod/ other games having features implemented in halo. I know there are an awesome range of cod/ gears maps in halo reach made by people, but the custom variants don't quite match what is needed to make them as similar. And I agree that people need to prove there skill. And the overall average from every ranked skill would be the best indicator of the best players, as it would be hard for the top players to be top in everything. Master Chief could you explain what you liked about halo 3 and reach systems. Why do you prefer reach? What is good/bad about my idea in relation to that?

Firefight is a great gametype. But if it is in halo 4, in it's third iteration, it needs to do a few different things to keep people playing it. This is one of the gametypes i have thought up for it. It is firefight/forge combined. The point of the game is simple. The waves and rounds of firefight work as normal, but the difference is that killing enemies racks up credit for the team aswell as points for the score. This credit is then used to purchase the weapons vehicles you need. This is the basic gametype. The bigger and more interesting gametype is the same as above, except that you start on a map with a very small (if any) base or resources at your disposal. The credit whilst being used to create weapons will also be required to create a base or structures to defend yourself from. This would be from a set pallet, and so problems such as creating chokeholds may be reduced. The scenery could also maybe be destructable, so again it stops you making a chokehold, and if there are upper levels, contain ramps and stairs. This would mean that just getting the best weapons all the time would be at the cost of somewhere to defend yourself. As the game gets harder, the decisions you made earlier in the game will also determine how successful you are. This could also be good for the generator defence, as there is the added incetive to construct structures over getting weapons as you have something to defend. The monitor system could work by anyone becoming the monitor whenever they want (can still be attacked), during a fixed period (end of a round) or only 1 at a time. The monitors could have a splazer/sentinel beam weapon to protect themselves from too. Things such as banshees, drones and wraiths would help ensure many of the possible tricks of the game could be avoided. Obviously this is a very brief description, but i feel it would be an interesting perspective to play firefight from. People's opinions on the ideas, suggestions of their own and criticism is welcome.

I remember one of the vidocs for forge when halo 3 first came in. they mentioned having battles using forge. However as you all know this never happened. This is the opportunity for 343 to create a new and interesting gametype. The gametype would work as follows. I would see it working almost like the vip playlists in that one member would start as the monitor/vip. If they die, the next person to die becomes the monitor. It would be like normal slayer, except that each team when they get a kill earn currency for the team, aswell as a point for the kill. This currecncy is used by the monitor to buy items for the team. It could be possible that other achievements (sprees etc) could earn extra currency for the team aswell. The items the monitor could buy would not be like normal forge objects, in that they have respawn times. They can purchase weapons for the team to pick up. Once this weapon is used up it dissapears from the map (doesn't respawn). The same can be said for vehicles. finally the monitor can build a limited amount of structures. Things such as shields/walls to protect the team, or ledges for them to stand on as you float them across the map. Things such as grav lifts to allow them to reach new locations. Or fusion coils to set up traps. this would also be destroyable, or have limited time on the map, to stop the map clogging up from too many bricks. Finally destroying the monitor would give the team bonus points, aswell as stopping it from assisting the team. Other gametpyes could be done with this method, things such as capture the flag, or assault. The monitors ability to move around quickly also helps the team know what is going on, an unusual but also cool aspect of this gametype. The monitor could also have a sentinel beam/splazer type weapon (similar to guilty spark in halo3). People's opinions on this gametype, whether they'd like to play it, what could be done to make it better, what other cool gametypes it could lead to would be welcome. Think it would be a really fun social gametype (or even ranked ). If it was also done for larger numbers (could possibly have 2 monitors in a team?) or multi team gametypes could lead to a very chaotic game.

Halo has always been since it has been onlone 8v8. Whilst this is a pretty god figure, I can't help but feel it falls short in many gametypes, and the larger maps available. Invasion for example, an epic battle between to armies, is 6v6!? I feel a larger player capacity would be great to refresh the halo games. Not only could it lead to larger battles, but also unique gametypes. Please fill in the poll as to what sizes people think should be aimed for in halo 4. Obviously the game also has to run as smoothly if not more so than previous halo's so maybe some of the larger sizes are less achieveable. I'd also like to know people's views on other gametypes and the number of people in those gametypes. Would people like to see 6 or even 8 player campaign (if possible), or 6-16 people in firefight. I know that verses was a cool idea for firefight in reach, but when it's only 2v2 there aren't enough people to make it successful.

Call of duty has a feature which all halo games have lacked (with the exception of customs) and I think would actually be very useful to halo. Halo matchmaking is in most circumstances very well. It must find a game, then find all the people needed to fill the game slots up, and then voting etc. In ranked this is fine, but in social (a system which is for fun/not that important), i feel it is unnecessary. That is why I think halo 4 should have join in progress for social games. The player choses a playlist, and the games puts that person into the first match it finds, whether it be a new game, or a game already started that has slots available. This would mean that teams who lose players may gain other players, meaning that the games do not become unbalanced. It also means finding matches is faster. There are obviously problems people have with the above, and many people have with the cod version. What if the team i join is losing, that's no fun, or joining a match at the last minute. The solutions I have for this, is rather than launching you into the match when it finds a slot, the game will show the gamestats, the score to win/time remaining, your teams score number of players etc, so you can see exactly what you'd be letting yourself in for. That way if it's a 4 on 1 and they need 1 flag with 10 seconds left, you don't have to join. The second, solution, contrary to the above example, is that games will only be available to you if they are less than half way completed already. This means you get a good amount of gameplay in. This solution would not encourage people quitting games, they would still be punished. It would also not work in ranked. Programming this situation would also mean the same could be applied to firefight join in progress, and campaign join in progress. A cool idea using this could be a 'find me a social match' playlist. This would search all social matches for games in progress or games just starting up that you could vote to join. If queued to join a friend you could also instantly join them should a slot become available in a social playlist. Finally not only would this speed up a person searching for a game in social mathcmaking, it would also speed up the time in which it takes for normal games to start. If there is 6v6 slayer. The game could start when 8 people are present (4v4), with 4 slots spare for people to join. Joining would probably be priority based, so it goes firstly to the team with less players, and secondly to the losing team. People's opinions and suggestions on this situation would be appreciated. I think it would be good for social, as it is an area of matchmaking where many quitters (and also filling slots from people who are booted for betraying/ afk for too long(possibly)) can be filled, keeping games fair, and at full size (no one likes a game of team slayer where 4 players are trying to hunt down 1 enemy).

I wasn't aware they ever tried to make it. I think if it had been it would have been quite small scale. If 343 were reading this they would definately have enough time to make a big deal of it, and like above create several gametypes from it. It could also be that these ships could be a forge object (limited of course). I know many invasion/ other gametypes friends have wanted to make with ships being docked on land or whatever.

THanks for the post. Yea I did put that just as an example. That's why I put week, as I do know people don't play 24/7. I just want to make the point that a rank system should at least encourage the people at the top to continue to play, otherwise they get to the high ranks and stop, which doesn't mean they have to continue to prove they are the best. It also stops people boosting to 50 and staying therem or selling of accounts on. You actually need to be good to stay there. As for the second point, extending your idea it would be good if a teamate went afk if they were kind of booted from the game, so they don't hinder the team, but they can rejoin at any point. Definately not allowing them to join other games should be enforced. Finally I think if they could detect why you quit would be cool, but at the end of they day, people would quit ranked if they thought the loss was bigger than the penatly, so it needs to be enforced. Blocking them from the next game is fine for a loss of connection, as you have to reconnect anyway. As for credit exp blocked, maybe just not give them any for that match, or just a small exp penalty. Maybe as credits won't be the ranking system credit jackpots could return, and bonuses could be done absed on number of games completed. At the end of the day, this game will be out at the end of 2012, and it is getting to the point where if you want to play games online you need at least a semi decent connection, so unless you could tell if they quit or lost connection, it would be at the sacrifice of a small number of people who lose connection to the larger number who quit.

Halo reach introduced an interesting campaign mission in space. However this was shortlived, and only for campaign. However, star wars battlefront 2 (why havent they made a third) has proven that space battle works. Therefore I would love halo to take on that perspective. Vehicles include: Banshees, sabres and seraphs (all used within the space battles in reach). Other vehicles should be the longsword (another fast single person vehicle for fighting). Like star wars battlefront, there will also be transport ships for some game modes, the pelican and phantom (hopefully these will be used in normal maps aswell). There could also be other vehicles, a hawk/hornet or flacon could also be used, aswell as a spirit drop ship, or some new vehicles. There are 3 gametypes that I can think of, all of which provide a different experince. The first is a standard dogfight. Each player will either a, spawn in a ship of their choosing/a fixed ship (could be humans vs covenant eg.), or from a bay in which there will spawn a variety of ships. It is then a slayer based game. A docking bay like a ship (think star wars battlefront) could be good as it means if all the ships are destroyed a player will have to wait for a new ship to spawn. Either many of each ship will appear or some ships will be limited, meaning different ships must be used. The second gametpye is similar to star wars battlefront. There are 2 ships, and both teams have an objective. This could be to capture the flag (requires a transport ship?) plant a bomb, capture a territory or just get into the ship and destroy it. To do this both teams must fight through the space to get to the ship. Team members spawn on the ship, and can either stay on it, or enter a spaceship. There will also be guns people on the ship can use to attack the enemy sapceships. these could also be destroyed. The third gametype is a one sided version of the above. One team must assault a ship and complete an objevtive. Both this and the above could also be done in stages, like a 1/2way invasion match. People's opinions on space battles, improvements to the above or gametypes they would like to see would be appreciated.

Another idea is also having flood playable characters. These could be used for infection gametypes, other versions of firefight etc.

Halo reach introduced a system that many people dislike. The credit system and the arena system. The credit system means that a persons rank is dependant on the amount they play (and also a bit of luck from the slot machine), rather than based on skill or winning games. The arena system required people to continuously play games, and punsihed those who has teammates leave with poor ratings. Whilst the idea had potential, it generally didn't work, and the fact you couldn't play ranked objective and there was only 2 (now 1) playlists for it proves it had problems. I have some ideas to not only fix the ranking system, but also the experience system, which is not as harsh as halo 3, but will still allow for skill to shine through. Firstly, the ranking system. For anyone who has played fifa online, the system works, by calculating the score of the match at the end, the teams that both people played as (whose was better, if any) and the skill of both players before the start of the match. I feel this method would be great for halo matchmaking. Imagine a line between 0 and 9999. Every 100 points would count as a level (0-99 level 1, 100-199 level 2... 9900-9999, level 99). Whatever your points are, this is the level you lie in. Everyone would start at level 1, like other games, and work their way up from there. The system would work as follows. Like fifa, the final score would come into the equation. If you are all playing people of equal points (both teams equal) and you lose 50-0, that is a crushing defeat for people of alleged equal skill. Both teams will increase and decrease a large amount. Your individual score would also come into the equation. If again the same situation applies, but you lose 50-49, then both teams would in the first situation go up and down equally. But if one member of the losing team pluses 20, and the others all minus 7 (a combined total of -21), it is clear that he is better than not only his team, but probably many of the opposing team, he too would probably go up alot. In the case of the teams being unequal (although hopefully trueskill would prevent this generally) imagine there is a team with all level 60's, and the other team are all level 40's. If the second team lost 50-49, it is clear that this is closer than the levels suggest. In this scenario the 60's would most likely go down a bit, and the 40's up (although the 40's will go up more than the 60's go down). A combination of the team score, the individual score, the team skills and the individual skill will all come into account when calculating how much each person goes up or down (kind of like arena, but using the scores of the level aswell as the in game scores as a calculation). Note assists would also help contribute to an individuals score, (if the team lose 50-49, and the guy has no kills but 49 assists, it is clear he was a big part in the teams almost victory) For objective, the victory margins will also be looked at (eg no captures vs 5, or no time with the oddball etc) In terms of an individuals performance, kd will always play a part, with objective achievements providing bonuses to a teams and your scores ( when averaged out this would then be similar scoring to slayer games). Other bonuses such as certain medals achieved (perfection or accolades such as mvp could also be used possibly) This would be implemented in all ranked playlists. As an added feature, there will be an average rank, based off how good you are across all playlists. Too often people in halo 3 were a 50 in doubles, but couldnt get there in lone wolves for example. Now your success will be judged across all games to get your overall rank, which can also be used as a good guideline to matchmake in scoial. A possible idea is also for a players points to decrease if they do not play x amount of games a day/week (such as 1 games a day/5 a week). This wouldnt be much, maybe 5 points a day/ 25 a week for example, but would mean that if people got to the high ranks, they have to at least play it occasionally to maintain at that level. Too often people in halo 3 reached 50 with the help of someone, and never played it again. Preventing that would be good. Would also mean if someone didnt play for a while there skill would not be so high, so they would be matched against people a bit lower in the rankings. The experience system would work based on an out of 10 points per game. There would be a distribution of exp throughout the gametype (could be different per gametype). This will mean people who did better in the playlist will get better rewards for there work, and this will show in their service record (kind of like win/loss record, which should also be shown). For example the distribution in a slayer gametype could be as follows: 2 points for winning a game (therefore incentive to win) 2 point for being mvp for your team (based on best k'd) 2 point for being mvp overall (based on kd) 1 point for most kills 1 point for most assists 1 point for least deaths 1 point for playing a complete match This way it is clear that usually the best people (the winners, the mvp's) will get more experince for there work than others, but everyone gets some sort of recognition. Obviously the above would be subject to change, based on people's views. For other gametypes most of those would apply, but maybe aswell as kd things such as most time on the oddball, most flag captures or just for capturing a flag or things such as stopping paople with the flag/cpaturing a territory could also be taken into account, again breaking a gametypes down into a way that they can all be quantified equally, whilst reqarding players for the thigns most important in that gametype. Note if the armoury returns, a credit system for matchmaking campaign firefight would be welcome, but not in terms of calculating your rank. Also the rank you are in ranked is absed on exp and level, so people who want to be generals (or the higest rank (eg eclipse or spartan or whatever) have to get to 9990-9999 points, and a certain amount of exp, (meaning you have to play so much to get it (cant boost)) This means each rank has a level, aswell as having an onverall rank, based on the average and your total of exp (agian would need so much (more than normal playlists). For social playlists it would work like the halo 3 method, where you have a rank in the playlist based on the total exp. Quitting games, another issue with halo, would result in 1) no exp, and xp removed from the user (the exp of a user would never come into account when calculating ranked, and so people could not boost by quitting etc) A set points deduction in ranked, say 100 points (a level). 2) the user being bloacked from joining an online game until the curent game is completed (at all times) People's opinions on these methods would be greatly appreciated. I think they are good ideas which match halo's previous systems while also looking at the rewards based on how individuals and the team have performed together. People's ideas on what else could be done would also be welcome. I really hope 343 get this system right, as i feel it was one of my main dislikes of halo reach.

Halo reach did something very unique; it made elites different from spartans not only in their appearance, but also in their physical attributes. Whilst I feel this was mainly negative, as it stopped you being able to choose which you were, It did give me a few ideas. In halo 4, proper spartan 2's will return, and therefore will be the same size as elites. I'm pretty sure brutes are also a similar size to these, and so all could function in multiplayer. But what if you could carry on the bungie idea of them being different. This would be done by making all base statistics, shield size health size melee damage, speed jumpheight etc changeable. If this was the case, they could all be exactly the same, or if people wanted to there could be differences between them, whether balanced or not. Ideas could include making elites slightly faster, but unable to jump as high, brutes the opposite, and spartans inbetween. Differences to their melee damage could also come into play (giving brutes a higher and spartan lower damages) but as a compensation, the speed of spartans beatdowns is slightly quicker. spartans could have more shield than elies and brutes, but less health, and brutes more health, but less shields than them. This could mean spartans when they lose their shields are 1 shot, but it takes a bit more damage to get there, whilst brutes may be 2 shots once their shields pop, but of coruse they pop faster. I think that the halo reach armoury system was quite cool, and wouldnt mind seeing it return. What i didn't like about it was that basically if you got the more expensive things, it basically made your spartan look more chunky. I think it would also be cool to get elites and brutes which you could customise, seeing as throughout the games brutes and elites have had many different looks. Another possible idea is to have loads of playable characters, such as being grunts, jackals etc. and from the other side like a marine, the return of the odst, and even a spartan 3. Gears of war 3 has currently produced a new horde mode wherby the player plays as the locust. Many a gametype could come about from being able to play as other characters. Any ideas people have about playable characters they'd like to play as, how to make the 3 main species really play well against eachother, or any amazing gametypes that could come from all 3 of them (3 way battles). Even if the ideas to make them different from eachother aren't great, i would love to be able to play as brutes and elites and spartans if they were all balanced.

I believe that with the return of a new halo, and hopefully not a new reach, dual wielding should return. Although many dislike it, It is a fun and unique aspect of halo and also feel there is a good solution to the problems of a dual wieldable weapon. Many dual wieldable weapons are on there own, a poor weapon to have, and this is why many people disregard them. For halo for, i believe the solution is to give each weapon a single wield 'advantage' over the dual wielding. For example, the pistol should be able to scope whilst single wielded, but not when dual wielded. Another example could be the plasma burn effect of a plasma rifle, the 'home in' or vehicle stun time of a plasma pistol, or the bullet spread/reticule bloom of dual wielding a weapon. I also feel the needler should return as a dual wield weapon. It would need to be stronger than the halo 2 version, and again maybe it's weakness could be a reduction in the 'home in' of the needles. The mauler should also make a return, but should either fire slower, or some other method to ensure the shot beatdown combo does not return (or at least is not as effective). I also think the sword should be dual wielded. The sword has been constantly outclassed by the shotgun, and so something is needed to spruce it up. The single sword would have a larger lunge range, and possiblt could use less energy per strike (methods to make single wield better). The single wield would require 2 hits, but the speed between hits could be increased, and as most people double beatdown with the sword in halo 3 anyway, this shouldnt be a problem. The dual sword could then be used to be more powerful than shotgun etc, as it will be harder to aquire. It will also make for amazing swords matches. In place of the single wield sword, A new weapon would take it's place. For anyone who has played halo2, the elites and then brute honour guard, have a staff which they hold (looks like an energy sword on a stick). This would be the new single wield weapon. It would have a great lunge, and the swiping method would work similarly to the grav hammer (but without the pulse), meaning multiple enemies could be hit by it. Finally i feel the perfect new dual wield feature should be a jackal shield. This shield would have a battery similar to a plasma pistol/rifle. When the trigger is pulled the shield covers the user's body/head. Bullets hitting the shield will make it's energy go down/overheat. If it overheats, the shield dissapears, becomes unusable, like normal jackal shields. To cover your body fully, the user would need to crouch, sacrificing speed for shelter. This would add an interesting aspect to the multiplayer and dual wielding. People's opinions, Alternative suggestions of how to make dual wielding better and other dual wield weapons would be awesome, I really hope that dual wielding does return, as it is a very unique feature that halo has.