SilentGamer64

I think they have a very good chance of coming back, especially after the outrage of them not being in Halo 4. I just hope the customization for elites is like it was in Halo 3 or better. I wasn't a fan of Reach's "pick 1 of 8 sets" while Spartans get to customize down to their friggin kneecaps. :/

IMO Valhalla needs to take a break as far as map remakes go. Ragnarok wasn't a bad map, it just suffered from Halo 4's poor gameplay. That being said, I don't want to see Blood Gulch remade either, since its already been remade 3 times. I personally would like to see Sandtrap remade, but I would worry about how it would play, especially with long range rifles like the DMR being spawned with. I also wouldn't want it to replace the elephants with mammoths, because then the whole map would have to be scaled twice as large, and it wouldn't really be a remake. Every Halo game has remade maps from previous games since Halo 2, and I would expect them to remake at least one previous map at most for the next title.

Meh, I'd prefer the Locust as the Covenant mech. "mini-scarab" just sounds more appealing to me than a "walking needler" lol.

None of them, as they currently are. I agree with the idea floating around that calls for placing all AA's on the maps to be fought over. They could also use some major buffs to make them more useful since they would be map pickups. Finally, they shouldn't be able to be used indefinitely. For instance, the jetpack would have a limited amount of fuel before it permanently runs out, like enough to get 5 or so good jetpack jumps in. Except now it can fly higher than before.

1. Space Combat. Preferably built off of the concept of Reach's Long Night of Solace level, but with larger capital ships, objectives that must be destroyed/captured on the opposing team's ship, and the option for infantry to launch into space if they want to opt out of taking a starfighter. Think in terms of Star Wars Battlefront 2 space battles, plus everything you wish you could do in SWBF2's space battles, plus Halo. 2. Every weapon/vehicle in the campaign should be available in forge. I dont care if it is as useless as a shade turret, or as overpowered as a scarab gun. If it's in campaign, it should be in forge. It still kills me that the AA Wraith and shade arent in Halo 3 forge, the grenade launcher falcon, multiple shade turret variants, and target locator arent in Reach's forge, and the broadsword isnt in Halo 4's forge (especially since 343 even gave us a forge map in outer space). 3. Elite armor customization. Every game after Halo 3 has downgraded Elite customization in some way. We went from elites that were equally as customizable as spartans in Halo 3, to limited elite sets and a wider selection of spartan armor pieces in Reach, to no customizable or playable elites at all in Halo 4.

I just want my CQB helmet back. Haven't seen it since Reach.

I understand what you are saying. You said that vehicles are currently weaker than they should be and proposed the welding tool for vehicle repairs. But I believe that there are better ways of making vehicles stronger again than keeping them the way they are now and adding a repair tool in, like buffing vehicle armor. Still, I'm not against having a welding tool for repairing vehicles. Perhaps it could even be used to EMP enemy vehicles. If ordinance returns, I guess it could fit in as a killstreak. If not, it could work as a map pickup too.

Vehicles being non-repairable should be the tradeoff for them being faster and more powerful than your average infantry player. I also feel like vehicles are being destroyed more quickly than they should, but it isn't because of other vehicles, because vehicles should be fairly effective against each other. I feel that small arms fire should not be able to do significant damage to vehicles. Weapons like the br, dmr, and sniper are precision rifles, not anti-tank rifles. That being said, these rifles should be used to pick off occupants of the vehicle, not to damage the vehicle itself. Halo 2 and 3 did vehicles extremely well in this regard. If you want to destroy the vehicle, find an explosive power weapon. Grenading the vehicle will flip it over, and boarding the vehicle gives you the opportunity to steal it. All of these methods take some degree of skill. Spawning with a hitscan precision rifle and spamming shots into a Warthog does not.

I guess I'll list mine out like Shun Kanamee did above. Warthog...Spectre Gauss Hog...Revenant Transport Hog...Shadow Wolverine*...AA Wraith Scorpion...Wraith...Shredder** Mongoose...Ghost...Chopper Hornet & Falcon***...Banshee Pelican...Phantom Elephant...Scarab V2**** Mammoth...Scarab V1***** Pelican...Phantom Mantis...Locust * The Wolverine would be an ideal replacement for the Rocket Hog. IMO we already have way too many Warthog variants, and the Wolverine would balance a lot better as a counterpart to the AA Wraith. ** The Shredder would be a new potential Brute Tank. Honestly, the Prowler was just a poor reskin of the Spectre, and Brutes really should have a tank vehicle since it complements their savage nature. *** IMO the Hornet has a lot more potential for balance as a counterpart to the Banshee, but I know a lot of people would riot if the Falcon wasn't included either. I don't really know of any good counterpart for the Falcon though, other than the Phantom since both have door gunners on the side. But theres also a significant size difference there too... **** The V2 Scarab is the Scarab model seen in Halo 3, ODST, and Reach. It is slightly larger than the Elephant, but I could see both working well as counterparts. ***** The V1 Scarab was the Scarab model seen in Halo 2. Because it is much larger than the V2 Scarab, it would make a much better counterpart to the Mammoth. Out of all the vehicles listed though, I expect these two to be the least likely to be useable. They're both way too big, even for BTB.

I am almost certain they will be playable in the next Halo MM. There was such a huge outrage in the community for them not being in Halo 4, that if 343i didn't include them again, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. If it becomes a canon issue with War Games, just say that Spartans need to be trained on how to kill elites, rather than just each other. Done.

1. Most definitely. Loadouts are responsible for dumbing down many of Halo's weapons that had potential to be more unique. For example, H4's Plasma Pistol is probably the worst in the series. Why? Because it has the fastest draining battery ever. This was purposefully put in place to prevent continuous abuse of the noob combo as well as vehicle EMP's, since everyone was spawning with them. As a result, its semi-auto fire mode became nearly useless at killing. Grenades are another example, and every grenade in that game has a pathetic blast radius unless a grenade perk is used. 2. There will always be trolls that ruin the fun of the game through team-killing, sabatoge, and going off task of the objective. I do agree though that ranks can help fight that off by giving players an incentive to try. 3. I agree to an extent. It really depends on what is causing the pool to overflow. For example, reducing the amount of hitscan, headshot-capable rifles in the sandbox? Sure, especially when the only differences are projectile color, fire mode, and scope magnification. But other weapons do fit in the sandbox, and simply need to be altered. The Storm Rifle is a good example. A lot of people call it an "AR reskin", and I agree. But it doesn't have to be trashed because of that, instead it should be changed to function more uniquely compared to the AR. Why not add the headshot bonus that the CE plasma rifle had? Or the venting feature used by Reach's plasma repeater? There's plenty of options out there. I'm down for limiting each faction to one weapon of similar function, but I know there would be a lot of controversy based on which weapons should stay, which should return, and which should go. Duel wielding and its related weapons should definitely come back though. 4. I am very interested in seeing what Halo XB1 is capable of on the new system, and hopefully 343i can use these new capabilities to introduce something new to Halo that wows the community (in a good way).

I would back this idea, but I voted not sure because bloom would randomize whether or not the automatic received the headshot bonus or not. Assuming you don't burst fire, the headshot bonus becomes a dice roll in that a fully expanded reticule will randomize your shots hitting the head. Any ideas on how to balance this? Because other than that issue, I would support this idea.

Nonetheless there is a significant enough difference between the DW weapons that affects how you use them. An SMG is almost hitscan, while a PR is projectile and requires shots to be led more so than the SMG. And the spiker has projectile drop, which requires the user to aim higher in certain situations. It was sarcasm. Also, you're suggesting the SSMG as a weapon we can SPAWN with. The SAW is supposed to be a power weapon ON THE MAP. Then make it a 6sk so there's no room for error. Reducing the pistol's ROF, removing the scope, and increasing its spread through increased reticule size/bloom would make it quite balanced with the AR, while keeping both it and the AR viable on their own. And again you assume that everyone would be duel wielding, and that the art of meleeing will "die out". This whole time you have been using duel wielding as examples for how it discourages melee, and yet you never take into consideration the various AR/SR vs. AR/SR battles, where melee would still be very much alive and well. DW isnt the only thing that discourages melee. AA's like armor lock, hardlight shield, and jetpack all discourage the use of melee, due to the enemy being invulnerable or unreachable. What about vehicles? Would you try to melee a charging ghost? I wouldnt. And weapons with scopes, or a 1hk discourage melee as well, because why should I get within melee distance when I can take them out from further ranges, or just by pulling the trigger? There are plenty of other items in the sandbox that discourage meleeing, so saying DW will be solely responsible for discouraging melee is far from the truth. In fact, looking at my stats, I've had far more melees in Halo 3's MM than I did in Reach and 4, where duel wielding was absent. Go figure. True, but in terms of where the weapons are placed compared to where players spawn, the map was laid out in an asymmetrically balanced way. One team is closer to the shotgun, the other team is closer to the hammer. One team gets camo, the other gets overshield, etc. Utilizing the noob combo with a standard rifle is quite effective, but having the magnum at the ready with the PP is faster. For other combos, you gain two weapons that can kill more efficiently than one, at the cost of grenades and melee. Given its slow recharge time, people would be better off meleeing the enemy after firing the charge shot than waiting for the overheat to subside in order to fire its semi-auto mode. Its role would essentially be the same as the mauler in your proposed form, with the exception of it not being a DW weapon. If you want the AR to get roflstomped, sure. But since you obviously dont, duel SMG's will at least give the AR a chance at mid range. Whereas if you try to use the AR against the SAW in any range, you end up choking on bullets. There's nothing unique about the SAW compared to duel SMG's either. The SAW is essentially a better AR with no tradeoffs or weaknesses against its "little brother".

Then by that logic, both the BR and CC are too similar and one of them must be removed. Because like DW weapons, both have a different ROF, level of accuracy, shots to kill, etc. Which brings us back to the shallow vs. cluttered debate. The BR and CC are unique enough to both be relevant in the same game, as are DW weapons. No, its short-mid range, in that it excells in short but can reach up to mid ranges via burst fire. And its true, the BR can beat CQC and short range weapons more effectively than the AR. But what if you have your AR is out, or you dont have a BR? By saying "the AR's niche is usurped by mid range and short range weapons" you are referring to when it isnt being used in the right situations. In CE, you wouldnt use the AR against a pistol or sniper at mid range, or a shotgun at CQC-close (I say close range because the shotty in CE had the best range in the series). So does that mean the AR in CE was usurped by the other weapons in the sandbox? No. People used it in situations it was most useful in. With DW in place, making the AR's usefulness dependent on the situation makes it arguably more skillful than it currently is, with its most common use being spray and pray. Using the AR's bloom to burst fire does virtually nothing at mid range against mid range rifles, and is more of an annoyance to them than anything. But using it against close range DW weapons with inferior range would give the burst fire more purpose rather than being a defensive mechanic to fend off scoped-in enemies. Copy-pasted from a point I just made above: "Then by that logic, both the BR and CC are too similar and one of them must be removed. Because like DW weapons, both have a different ROF, level of accuracy, shots to kill, etc. Which brings us back to the shallow vs. cluttered debate. The BR and CC are unique enough to both be relevant mid-range weapons in the same game, as are DW weapons for close range." We would be better off giving the SAW a x2 scope and throwing it on the map (balanced) as a power weapon. As I said earlier, the SSMG would negatively disrupt the BR/CC's scope ins, whether it be constantly descoped or pelted with flinch. The reason full autos arent meant for longer ranges is because they have recoil, bullet spread, and low damage-per shot. Make it buff, and it becomes OP and hurts the BR/CC. Make it weaker, and it becomes the redundant weapon that no one uses and it still hurts the BR/CC in-scope. I dont know if your proposed SSMG idea is an effort to introduce a unique weapon to the sandbox, or as a ploy to change the SMG so that duel wielding becomes irrelevant, but either way, it wont work with Halo's established sandbox. A 5sk magnum with CE's ROF would be able to hold its own against mid-range rifles fairly well at close-mid range, even without a scope. Duel wielded, it essentially becomes the reincarnation of CE's magnum, capable of a 3sk (or two shots from one magnum and three from the other). If the 3sk DW magnum, or the magnum with any other DW weapon for that matter is deemed OP, its accuracy could also be reduced when duel wielded, either with an enlarged reticule, or bloom (realistically, duel wielding would lower a soldier's accuracy anyways). So you're saying that an opponent could have more shields for a spiker's melee to bleed through compared to the AR? I suppose that could work in a balanced way, but requiring more or less shots isnt as much as an issue as the killtime is. By slowing the spiker's ROF, sure, it could take less shots than an AR before being able to perform a beatdown, but if the AR can fire faster than the spiker, it could get to the point where their beatdown killtimes are identical, or possibly even faster for the AR. You wouldnt place a rocket launcher in red base and a needler in blue base. The same applies to duel wielding, and Guardian is a good example for this. Assuming its BR/CC AR/SR starts, there is only one magnum and one PP on the whole entire map. Not only does this mean that only one person can use the DW noob combo, but that person has to travel to two different locations to obtain such an advantage, assuming another player hasnt already picked up one of the two weapons. On the other hand, some DW weapons are placed next to each other, like the pair of PR's in the hallway next to the bottom floor of the grav lift, or the pair of spikers near the tree stump. So really, you wont always have to travel to two different locations to pick up DW weapons, but when you do, there's a reason why those weapons arent placed near each other. Meaning one charge shot of the BS would disable shields and leave you with five extra shots for the headshot? Sure, and that would actually work well with DW in that two BS charge shots would be powerful enough to kill an enemy. That would make the BS a lot more skillful than the mauler, since with the BS you would have to wait for the recharge rather than being able to fire again immediately like you can with the mauler.

"Bloated", as in feeling bloated after eating a large meal, means that there appears to be too much of something. "Shallow", as in a pond being shallow enough for people to walk through, means that there is little to nothing there. COD's weapon selection is bloated, because there is a large quantity of weapons to choose from. However, the weapons themselves are shallow in that there is little to no difference in their effectiveness in the game. Each weapon will kill within 1 second. Duel wielding may make the sandbox appear bloated in that there is a large amount of weapons in the sandbox, but when you look at the differences of each weapon, they are far from shallow, and are actually quite unique from each other. AR's can beat shotguns, swords, hammers, and all single wield SMG's at mid range, and the BR, Carbine, DMR, LR, sniper, beam rifle, and bi-rifle at close range. Lets also not forget that it can beat itself (other AR users) if it gets the drop on the enemy. IMO, after listing all the weapons it can beat based on where its used in its niche, its far from irrelevant or redundant. I agree, and by that logic, its ok to have the SMG, PR, and spiker have the same combat niche, just as it was for the AR and PR in CE, as well as the AR and SR in Halo 4. You just complained that duel wielding would make the AR redundant, and then immediately try to shoehorn the SSMG in? The AR would do better against a regular SMG compared to a SSMG with a x2 sight. And recoil could shoot your reticule up to the roof for all I care, but it will still be manageable enough to dominate the BR and Carbine, both of which suffer from spread when unscoped. The same goes for bloom (which would be a horrible mechanic for any kind of SMG). You're trying to compare a close range (SMG) niche to a CQC (shotgun) niche. The Boltshot (charge shot), scattershot, and shotgun are all CQC weapons. Perhaps the boltshot's semi-auto mode makes it unique enough to still be considered relevant, but the scattershot is in the same dilemma with the shotgun as the DMR is with the LR. Other than bouncy projectiles and exploding confetti, the scattershot offers nothing unique that the shotgun cant already handle in CQC. Yes, and I had just said that giving it a slightly faster ROF wouldnt have made it looked down upon as much. Not to the point of Reach's or 4's where it could be unskillfully spammed for a lucky kill, but fast enough that it could remain a viable option at close-mid range without being too overpowering. Slapping a scope on the magnum is arguably for nastolgia's sake, because a precision weapon like the magnum can already dominate ranges longer than full auto weapons like the AR can without a scope, and the BR replaced the pistol as the main mid-range precision weapon long ago. So you want the spiker to have a 1hk melee? Sacrificing ROF and lower damage per shot is a terrible sacrifice for a 1hk melee. I would rather sacrifice grenades and melee to duel wield than to pick up that weapon. Perhaps it wouldnt damage CQC, but why pick up the melee damage modded spiker when I could just pick up a shotgun or sword? Why should I pick it up if I could just stick with an AR which does more damage per shot than it? Your proposed suggestions to change the spiker would make it an unfavorable choice compared to the other weapons in the sandbox that are already available. Out of all the brute weapons, I could only seeing a 1hk melee working on the bruteshot, but the thing is already a grenade launcher, so giving it a melee boost might be overkill. At the same time, if you try to balance this out with a slower ROF and lower damage per shot, you might as well rename it the "potato shot". PP's and PG's could be considered power weapons, and Halo 4 made the mistake of allowing players to spawn with them. As for the noob combo, deal with it. Its something unavoidable that has been there since the beginning of Halo, and as long as Halo continues to have the PP and a headshot weapon in the game, it's going nowhere. Yes, it is fair to players who didnt want to duel wield, because duel wielding can be considered a power weapon. And before you say "then it isnt really an option, you have to duel wield to keep the upper hand", think about this: There are two power weapons on a map, the shotgun, and a sniper. You know where both of them are, but as soon as you go for one, the enemy will pick up the other one. Which one do you go for? Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages. Both weapons can be countered in some way by the weapons you spawned with. Will you get gunned down by the enemy's power weapon? If you dont play to their weakness, it's guaranteed. The same can be said for duel wielding. If someone is trying to kill you with duels, whip out a weapon with more range and back out of their effective niche. "I came around a corner with an AR and duels killed me." Pity. The same thing happened to me, except the enemy was holding a rocket launcher. But you dont hear me complaining. I accepted the fact that I done goofed. Because it makes combinations more efficient to utilize. To me, labeling something "nuke cannon", making it shoot 'splody things, and calling it a day is the lazy way out for developers to make a power weapon. Duel wielding is difficult to balance, but that makes it all the more rewarding when that balance is achieved. Perhaps the noob combo is balanced in a way that makes it the most effective combo in the game, but every map only offers one PP and one pistol. Perhaps some duel wield combos end up working well (SMG/PR) while others end up being less efficient at killing (duel PP's). And while looking and feeling cool may have a neutral effect from a balancing standpoint, it sells.

Wait, so does adding more weapons that apparently "bloat" the sandbox make the sandbox cluttered, or shallow? Those two words are pretty much opposite of each other, so pick one. An example of cluttering the sandbox would be Halo 4's Loadouts. Why did they even bring back the DMR? Not only was it supposed to be destroyed with reach, but now we have a weapon (LR) that does its job even better with a 4sk. The suppressor doesn't really belong either, since both it and the SR have the same killtime, and the SR already fills the projectile/full-auto role. And the scattershot and boltshot aren't as useful in CQB compared to the shotgun, so they don't really belong either. An example of a shallow sandbox would be CE's. Each weapon is unique, but at the same time, there's no variety, and with a selection of a whopping 9 weapons, your average gamer would find COD more attractive, what with the 20+ guns you get to choose from. Duel wielding doesn't clutter the sandbox because duel wield weapons are unique enough from each other to not be considered "clones" unlike COD's selection of weapons (which for the most part are clones of each other mechanics-wise). At the same time, it doesn't make the sandbox shallow, for the obvious reason that there is a wide selection of weapon combos that can be done with duel wielding, and even when single wielded, each weapon has its own use, whether it be shields vs. health, projectile vs. hitscan, headshot bonus, etc. It wouldn't work, because the silenced SMG was a weapon built exclusively around campaign/co op gameplay, not PvP combat. It was also a temporary replacement of the BR. That's why the BR isn't in ODST, because the SSMG was made to fill in the same role as a medium range weapon (less spread, smaller reticle, x2 scope), with the only difference being that it's a full auto. Also assuming de-scoping (hopefully) returns, it wouldn't rival precision weapons, it would dominate them. And being constantly pelted with flinch isn't much better either. The only flaw in Halo 3's pistol was its slower ROF. Otherwise, it was a 5sk (hmm...just like the DMR), and was an effective close-mid range precision weapon. So saying it was only effective when duel wielded with another weapon is just your opinion. If its ROF were increased to match CE's pistol, it would have been both balanced and more effective in both single and duel wielding situations. And the pistol should already have the upper hand against the AR at mid range, as do most semi-auto precision weapons against full autos. The spiker is already unique in that it has the ability to both strip shields and damage health faster than a single SMG or PR. Its a utility/crossover between the two weapons, not a "counterpart" (by which you probably meant "clone"). And the spiker already had a slightly stronger melee than other weapons (http://www.halopedia.org/Spiker#Trivia). Giving brute weapons an even stronger melee than what they had before would also conflict with CQB combat, way more than duel wielding would. No, they wouldn't balance well with duel wielding, which is obviously your goal here. And again, you are trying to sidestep the fact that the player doesn't have to sacrifice grenades and melee to duel wield if they don't want to. The needler in Halo 3 and Reach are both 12sk, and in Reach its actually a 13sk against Elites, so IDK why you're saying its any better in reach when its not. As for the pistol, its a 5sk in both Halo 3 and Reach, with the only difference being reach's has a scope which is pretty much made redundant by the DMR, and random bloom with a spammy ROF that makes it arguably less skillful to use than Halo 3's pistol. Also, Reach's AR was probably the worst AR in the entire Halo series. And that isn't even a duel wieldable weapon. The Plasma Repeater was just as bad, if not worse. IDK about you, but I thought a good portion of Reach's sandbox was garbage.

A single SMG can trump an AR or BR on its own in its niche. Duel wielding increases the effectiveness of the SMG within its niche (more firepower, reduced killtime), but it doesn't extend it past that niche. A shotgun can still blast a duel wielder at CQC, and an AR and BR can still beat duels out at mid range. The CQC weapons would be fine, since SMG's and AR's have the overlapping close range niche. If an SMG or AR user is in close range, all a shotgun/sword user has to do is close the gap for the kill. Perhaps individually SMG's aren't semi-power weapons, but duel wielding would definitely make them so. That's why you're sacrificing melee and grenades for it, because duel wielding is, in a way, a unique power weapon of its own. As for cluttering the sandbox, I strongly disagree. I am not about to see Halo's sandbox be reduced to 7 weapons like in CE, with only one or two new additions. That would be what I would consider a shallow sandbox. Based on the loadouts you just proposed above, you should also have either a BR or a CC handy. And of course, as I stated above, duel wielding could be considered a semi-power weapon in its own right, and unlike simply picking up a rocket launcher and going to town, the SMG/pistol wielder had to pick up both weapons off the map before gaining access to the combo.

Yeah, vehicles only really apply to BTB and 6v6 anyways, the golden triangle is more for the 4v4 gameplay. And there really is no "proper" way to use the triangle, players can do what they want, and whatever the consequences are will be a direct result of their actions. Obviously not, and I'm assuming those games allow you to throw grenades and melee too. But in Halo, duel wielding has its tradeoffs for the additional weapon. No, because you are essentially spawning with "one gun" that can be fired with two triggers. COD did akimbo starting with MW2 as well (in fact, as of Ghosts, COD still does akimbo). Its interesting to note that COD adopted a duel wield system with MW2 (2009) around the same time Halo dropped it with ODST (2009) and later Reach (2010). While akimbo in COD makes you feel like a bad*ss, its only tradeoff is ADS, which Halo doesn't even have. And having something like this in Halo would be worse, because all the weapon combos that were possible with duel wielding before would be limited to only matching weapons. Its window is no smaller than it was in CE. In fact it was probably even smaller in CE with weapons like the 3sk pistol, headshot/stun PR, longest ranged shotgun in the history of Halo, and the sniper and rockets. 1. In Halo's 2 and 3, the SMG's reticule was bigger, indicating that the BR (and AR in Halo 3) had the superior range. Larger reticule = more spread, which is why the shotgun's reticule is a giant circle, and the sniper's is a tiny circle. Recoil was also used in 2 and 3 for balance. It wasn't at all for realism, because by that logic, holding a detatched turret or a SAW would also produce recoil. The SMG wouldn't have bloom, so its effectiveness would solely rely on what range you use it in (CQC-close), while using it at mid range would be its cut off. As for the AR, it currently takes 13 shots to kill with it in Halo 4. It also received some sort of spread or bloom reduction to make it viable against the souped up precision rifles. You also have to understand that the SMG would be an on map weapon if duel wielding were to return, so the fact that it is better than the AR at close range makes it kind of a lower-tiered power weapon in a way, like the needler. No, because the SMG's effective range doesn't change, just the amount time it takes to kill someone at said range does. The AR would still be able to dominate duel SMG's at mid range like it would a single SMG. As for the Shotgun, it's a 1sk weapon at CQC, so what logic makes you think it will struggle against duel SMG's at its own niche? Melee wouldn't be affected. You would still be able to do your 2 shot beatdown with the BR, or close the gap with AR fire and finish them off with a melee. Backsmacking and assasinations would still function the same way, and ninja-ing would still be a viable tactic. It is optional. As I've said before, if you don't want to duel wield, keep your AR/BR or pick up a different power weapon, and use those weapons to your advantage against those who are duel wielding. Shotguns beat out duels at CQC, AR's beat duels out at mid, and BR's beat out duels at mid-long range. You make it sound like everyone is going to be running around with duel SMG's, but they're not. Look at Valhalla, there were only two SMG's, a spiker, and two PP's at each base. That means a total of 2 players could be duel wielding, and given the map's size, I would think that most people would just keep the AR/BR they spawned with. I actually like this idea. Weapons that don't work in loadouts can remain unique and spawn on the map, and weapons that do work can be customized by the player in a way that doesn't change its function. Well done. It is still viable by itself in its respective niche, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that two SMG's are better than one. With a single SMG, you will indeed be able to trump the AR and BR at CQC and close ranges, but going up against duel SMG's with one SMG? Do the math.

Of course, we could revert completely back to one use equipment, but then AA's like hologram and thruster would be nearly useless. Who would want to pick up something that only gives them one hologram, or one thruster dodge? Abilities like these could have 4-5 uses before running out. See? Instead of scrapping AA's we can just fix them to be better balanced. And like I said earlier, if the main reason people want sprint is for faster gameplay, just increase the movement speed and put the speed boost powerup on the map. Honestly, loadouts are the ultimate offender of making the noob combo easily accessible to players. With duel wielding, you would still have to find the PP on the map, just like you did in CE, except, as said before, you are trading grenades and melee for it to be wielded with a pistol at the same time. And despite being called the "noob combo" it still arguably takes more effort to execute than say, running up to a player with the PP, and charge shot-meleeing them, which has been present in every single title since CE. The golden triangle of guns, grenades, and melee? As stated before, duel wielding sacrifices grenades and melee for increased firepower in the guns category. And I would even go as far as saying that there are flaws with the golden triangle don't apply all the time, like when you are either out of grenades, out of range to melee someone, or out of ammo. Should running out of grenades be considered detrimental to the golden triangle? No, because the player can still work with what they've got, and seek out more grenades later on. "...influenced weapon design/balance to accommodate it with weapons that must be used "akimbo" to be more useful than spawning weapons (not the best idea for an Arena shooter in my opinion)." Fixed. An Arena shooter is about equal starts, and fighting for control of weapons/vehicles/positions on the map. These advantages are placed on the map in such a way that encourages map movement. A players success is based on their own individual playstyle and skill. No where in the definition of "Arena shooter" is there a line that reads "Arena shooters do not let players duel wield or akimbo weapons". After you spawn in, no matter you do, even if you decide to duel wield, its fair game. If duel wielding is to blame for the PR loosing its CE traits, then it would have only been logical for it to regain them in Reach, where duel wielding was removed to bring back the "CE feel" to Halo. Except it didn't, because it wasn't just duel wielding that caused the PR to be changed, it was the expanding sandbox, and the balance between each weapon within the sandbox. It was fine in CE because people were running around with a 3sk pistol. But when we got the 4sk BR in Halo 2, all the other existing weapons in the sandbox had to be toned down to balance with it. CQC, as in, the niche where weapons like the shotgun, sword, hammer, and scattershot excel in. The difference between CQC and close range, is that CQC is basically the niche where a melee is most effective. Wereas close range is just out of melee range, thus the word "range" in close range. To better explain why I placed the SMG in CQC-close, is because that is where it is most effective. Of course, an SMG cant beat a Shotgun or sword in CQC, but it can beat other weapons like the AR and BR in CQC. The AR cant touch the SMG's niche of CQC or close range, but it can beat the SMG at mid range, as well as the BR in close range. Likewise, the BR is terrible against the SMG and AR at close range, but can beat them both out at mid range. And I'm sure you already know what the sniper's niche is. So yes, the AR has a niche, but its effectiveness depends on how the player uses it. I suppose it isn't entirely pointless, but it makes COD and BF look way more appealing, with all the "options" they have. As I said before, if the only choices are the BR/CC, and the AR/SR, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that other people may see this as "limiting their options". In other words, it would be ideal for balancing Halo, but will it be well received? Then you are still at fault. If you didn't want to duel wield in the first place, then right from the start you shouldn't have picked up the SMG. If you chose to use the AR to avoid duel wielding, but you know SMG's are still in play on the map, then you should have kept to mid range with your AR where it will excel against potential SMG threats the most. Because the duel wielder sacrificed melee, yes, a quick melee-headshot combo would be fair game. In the end you aren't punished for duel wielding, you're punished for not playing to your AR's strength at the most effective range against the SMG. Assuming you as well as your fallen enemy picked up a duel wieldable weapon from the map. You are assuming a set up like Halo 2 with SMG starts. As I said above, spawning with the BR/CC primary and AR/SR secondary is fine, but that doesn't mean you should spawn with a duel wieldable weapons like the SMG or PR. As for the pistol, I said in a previous post that it shouldn't be spawned with anymore and just be placed on the map. As for the fallen player being at a disadvantage upon respawning, when has that ever been any different in Halo? In CE if I die with rockets and the enemy picks them up, am I at a disadvantage upon spawning? You bet. Its part of the game, where the better player survives while the lesser player respawns. If you die and give the enemy the advantage, that's your own fault.

And as I've already said, this can be changed. I personally dislike sprint and AA's, but I'm not about to push for them to be scrapped without considering those who do like them. I dislike them for the reasons you stated above, they cause problems with Halo's gameplay. I've seen plenty of people suggest limiting the amount of times AA's are used, and placing them on the map as equiptment. I've also seen ideas for fixing sprint, but if the mechanic itself cant be kept, at least we could always increase movement speed or place the new speed boost powerup on the map somewhere. The same goes for duel wielding. Balancing can be done to make duel wields do double the damage as one. A good example would be the pistol. Single wielded, the pistol could be a 5sk. Make it duel wielded, and it becomes a 3sk (2 shots from one pistol and 3 from the other), just like CE's pistol. Of course, you would have to slow down the ROF, but it wouldn't be as ridiculously slow as Halo 3's pistol. It could instead match the CE pistol's ROF, and then you have a decent single wield weapon that becomes even more powerful duel wielded. That's exactly what I'm saying. Its all has to do with the hierarchy of the weapons sandbox. Shotgun: CQC SMG: CQC-close AR: close-mid BR: mid-long Sniper: long Each weapon covers their designated niche. And what makes you think the AR is left without a niche? I just listed its niche above. It can take advantage of the shotgun and SMG's inability to reach mid ranges, and the BR and sniper's inability to be effective in close ranges. First of all, its never usually a good idea to run around in Halo without a headshot capable weapon. Secondly, I am assuming you originally spawned with a precision weapon along with your AR, since choosing to spawn with an AR and SMG, or even swapping said precision weapon for an SMG on the map, severely limits your options. In the event that you come across someone duel wielding SMG's, it would have been best if you had pulled out your precision weapon (that you seemed to have conveniently misplaced), meleed once, and then cleaned them up with the precision. . Because they sacrificed a quicker melee for duel wielding, they would likely keep firing, which is still slower than the quick melee-headshot combo. In hindsight, if you were unsure wether or not someone was waiting for you on the other side, you should have fragged around the corner first before proceeding. In the end, you are punished for running in without fragging first, as well as running in with two full autos rather than one full auto and a precision to back you up. As for why you traded your precision weapon for an SMG, I don't know. But either way, it isn't duel wielding's fault. Of course it will make gameplay dull for him, but that's his choice. Gameplay is still engaging for you because you chose not to duel wield, and therefore still have the ability to frag and melee. You already know how to deal with someone who's shooting at you, so you should put those advantages you chose to keep to good use. I'm not saying change the CC, but if the BR/CC and the AR/SR are the only weapons that function nearly identically, theres really no point to loadouts. Perhaps the option to just choose between the BR/CC as a primary and the AR/SR as a secondary would be ok, but then what would happen with AA's? Pistols/sidearms? If those were placed on the map in a balanced way, I would be fine with that. Otherwise, 343i might as well bring back (balanced) Elites to MM, force spawn them with CC/SR, and then force spawn Spartans with BR/AR. If there's nothing wrong with differentiating the AR/SR between shield vs health damage, then why are you against that same differentiation between the SMG/PR? Or did you change your opinion in support of the distinction between ballistic vs plasma weapons being health vs shield damage? Either way, I would be fine with the AR/SR functioning that way. CE's was the Pistol/AR, and Halo 2's was the BR/SMG. The combo was always there, even if the weapons were slightly different. So then put the pistol on the map. Maybe buff it a bit too. The only reason its still around is for CE nostalgia. The real CE pistol turned into the BR in Halo 2, and lived on through 3, and 4. Its still here, but its a rifle now.

All vehicles in Reach had crappy health. The sniper, DMR, and even the AR and pistol could shred right through their armor. Its sad to see the value of weapons like the Spartan Laser and Rockets (even with lock on) decrease ever since small arms fire started doing significant damage to vehicles. It also isn't that difficult to use a guass cannon.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be repeating what Halo 4 did, which is removing features that many people enjoyed. Your opinion is to keep something out that other people (including myself) enjoyed. The same could be said for features like sprint or AA's. Sure they're cool and fun, but are they good for Halo? Debatable. Should they be trashed? Absolutely not. There are plenty of ways to improve AA's and sprint, and the same can be done for duel wielding as well. Its not contradicting at all. The reason I can beat AR users in close range with an SMG is because I play to its strengths. If the AR user is competent enough, they will keep their distance to take advantage of my SMG's weakness at mid range and beat me out. The AR can beat the SMG at mid-ranges, and the SMG can beat the AR at close ranges. They're balanced to fill their intended niches. That's the problem with loadouts. They require "filler" weapons to keep the concept of loadouts relevant. And those "filler" weapons basically have to be nearly identical in purpose. Halo 4 has 4 precision rifles, 3 automatics, and 3 pistols. Except two of the three pistols are harmful to gameplay in some way, and the two long range precision rifles encourage less map movement and campy gameplay. That leaves us with only 6 weapons to choose from. The truth is, Halo was never built with loadouts in mind. In the past, Halo's weapons were allowed to be unique because they all spawned on the map. But if Halo is forced to be built around loadouts, none of the weapons offered on spawn are going to be unique enough from one another due to the need for a sense of balance at spawn. And it doesn't matter if there's duel wielding or not when you throw the SMG or PR in as secondaries, because the loadout system would require them to have similar if not the same killtimes in order to be properly balanced. You know that there's very little difference between the AR and SR in loadouts, right? It would be the same case for the SMG and PR in the secondaries slot. This is why we're better off going with the tried and true BR/AR starts, so that the rest of the weapon sandbox can be placed on the map and have some breathing room to become more unique. The SR wouldn't have to be a blue clone of the AR, the DMR/LR could provide a slight range advantage against the BR, vehicle play would be restored with stickies on the map, and the PP and boltshot's semi-auto fire modes could be buffed to be viable enough to kill an opponent before having to reload/recharge.

I would love to see the Arbiter come back. Maybe Halo 5's campaign could be like Halo 2's, where you switch between Chief and Arbiter's perspectives.

If they do, I hope they explain why other Spartan II's survived somewhere in the game. I felt like Halo 4 relied a bit too much on the books and people who have played all the previous games but haven't read any of them were probably really confused about who Didact was and why the Elites were attacking again.

Oh god no. Reach didn't even let us have the grenade launcher falcon in MM, and for good reason. Gauss falcons would be a disaster to balance. I'd settle for Halo 3's Hornet(s), but any air vehicles more powerful than that would be way too OP.