RedStarRocket91

I quite like the idea of this, but it could be really awkward to organise - what happens if a player misses a game, for example? And do we work on a win/loss scale or some sort of points system (3/win, 1/draw, 0/lose, for example). It also caters quite heavily to Slayer gametypes, and MLG rules. The first is only a problem due to lack of variety (and because we'd be stuck with the same two or three maps if we want balanced matches) but using MLG rules could put a lot of players off, and that would make getting enough players together to actually form the league difficult. Then you have to decide for things like 2v2 and 4v4, are players scored individually or must they form teams? And if it's the former, do they get marked on kills and deaths or points for wins and losses? Someone could go 24/1 and get nothing with a points system, but someone who plays a support role with Plasma Weapons may help his teams win nearly every game but have a rubbish K/D. On top of that, do we use default maps and settings or modified versions of each map; do we use pre- or post-TU settings; should some gametypes be Zero Bloom; are players restricted to certain playlists; if we include Objective games, are they to be Symmetric or Asymmetric; how do we determine who ranks higher if two teams rank equal on points; do the organisers dictate what gametype and what map are played on each fixture, or do they let the competitors vote from a list; should we allow players to switch teams during a season? I'm not trying to put you off, but these are all things that need to be considered.

Very disappointed with this. A good Spectator Mode is part of why other games like Starcraft and Call of Duty are so popular among e-sports brands like MLG, and viewing the field purely from the players' perspectives is very limiting. Bandwidth shouldn't be an issue anyway: remember, these are the same people who've told us their netcode is so good that they don't need dedicated servers.

Yes, they should still be saved. Reach records things as they happen, not after the game. That's why if you kill two enemies and then die and quit, your stats are still updated. It'll still count as a win and not a quit as long as you get the 'Game Over' announcement before it crashes.

If you install the game, you still need the disc to play it - it just increases loading times. Your disc is probably damaged in some way if this doesn't happen with other games, so it might be best to invest in a new one - you can pick up a used copy of Reach for under £10 in most places, and you'll still be able to use any pre-order bonuses you got with your original disc. If it happens with other games, you can either try using a lens cleaning disc, which can be fairly expensive, or sending your Xbox away for repairs, as that's likely the problem.

There used to be an 'Anniversary Squad' playlist which was normal Reach rules on Anniversary maps, but it was removed due to low population. Your best option is to either keep playing Team Slayer and hope it comes up, or get enough players with the DLC together to party up and achievement boost in Rumble Pit. You can also try Anniversary Big Team, I think that still sometimes has regular Reach rules.

I think part of the problem was that I went into it expecting it to be something it wasn't. I thought it was going to be really terrifying, something that would get inside my head, but there wasn't anything that got at me psychologically. I still sometimes get nightmares about the original Alien, and I watched that back when I was a kid. The gore was... okay, I guess. Years of playing Gears of War has all but completely desensitised me to blood and guts, so even though some bits were nasty they didn't have me curling up and feeling nauseated in the same way the chestburster from the original Alien did - although then again, that's because this was a trick that's been pulled before, and pulled in a more graphic and horrifying way. I liked the fact that it was trying to do something different, though - the problem is that it didn't go far enough. It's not just the same spirit of the tricks used in Alien, it was the same tricks used in Alien. I though it was going to use the engineers as a part of some greater story about philosophy and the things we believe as a part of some greater cosmic whole, but instead they're just albino brutes with a bag of flashy setpieces and a refusal to explain themselves until someone forks over the money for a sequel.

It's possible, although not confirmed so far. I remember it being stated that these were 'rogue' Elites, which suggests that there are still at least some who'll side with us.

I personally prefer 4v4 games purely because it makes the connection that much better. It also means you can get an Extermination medal with the Sniper Rifle, which would only be possible via luck rather than skill in a 5v5 game (you have to wait for two enemies' heads to line up, instead of just shooting them one after another). Warthogs would be quite overpowered on most maps in a 4v4 gametype, especially if the turret is anywhere near as vicious as the Halo 3 variant - but I can't see any problems with adding Ghosts into the mix, as that's worked very well before in maps like Isolation, High Ground, and Orbital. It also opens up more fun weapon sandboxes and tactical options - Rocket Launchers are usually horribly overpowered, but if there's a vehicle on the map they become much more balanced, as you have to decide whether killing either the two clustered enemies with Pistols or the guy in the Ghost better benefits your team. 5v5 has its place, I guess, but 4v4 has always worked fine so far and there isn't really any pressing need to change it.

This is an interesting idea, although I'm not sure about the autoboot thing - I'm assuming you thought of that to stop people just betraying themselves over and over in order to lose points and cost their team the game, but they could just do that via suicides anyway. It could also potentially lead to new kinds of trolling - someone goes and grabs the Rocket Launcher and just stands aiming it into a corner half a map from the nearest enemy, knowing that if one of their teammates want to actually use the weapon to do some damage they have to wait for an enemy to kill the troll first. I don't know what could be done about that, but it would make a nice change to pick up the Sniper Rifle in a Team Slayer game and not have seven people suddenly shooting at you. It's definitely a better idea than just no friendly fire damage at all though, as players would still have to be careful about not hitting teammates - putting strategy and tactics into your attacks is what has always set Halo apart from more arcade-style shooters. As long as there's still an option for more traditional means of friendly fire in Custom Games, I think this is a great idea and shouldl definitely be the standard style used in Matchmaking!

I'm sure they would have time for both - it's a big studio after all, and you've got to give something to do to all of the artists and writers whilst the engineers get on with those things.

Well, why not try posting in one of them? Seriously, this stuff is getting old.

This is exactly what the Halo community needs - people thinking of imaginative ways to use new game features instead of just blindly complaining about them. Fantastic idea, Stealth Pilot - I can't wait to see how it turns out!

And in CoD you get such a huge aim assist, even if they can't aim it still doesn't matter - that's one thing I definitely like about Halo 4, it looks like there's going to be a lot less mechanical help in keeping on target.

I'm with you on this one. Longer kill times lead to bigger skill gaps, as it's harder to get cheap kills from behind or from really long range, unless you're using a dedicated 'Pro' weapon like the Sniper Rifle.

It's up now, I think it looks a bit... odd. Like there's a second scope attached to the main one.

I'm kind of against this, for two main reasons. The first is that generally, if you capture an opponent's vehicle, it'll take some damage in the process. So, for example, if you toss a 'nade at it and then kill the driver, although you've done all the hard work in actually getting the thing, you get penalised whilst they didn't have any problems. This creates an awkward situation where, in attempting to capture vehicles, players are going to have to avoid trying to damage the thing, which is very unfair. The second is that Spartans don't suffer any penalties for suffering damage - a Spartan with a single remaining point of Health is just as agile, accurate, and powerful as one without any damage whatsoever. Put simply, this would need to change as well, as there shouldn't be a double standard for vehicles and infantry. That said, this could potentially make for fun Custom Game types, if you can spawn vehicles in pre-damaged or whatever, so I wouldn't mind it being included there. I just don't think it should be in Matchmaking.

I'd make a gun which could freeze opponents. It wouldn't do a lot of damage, but would fire very quickly, and every successive hit would decrease the target's movement speed and jump height, as well as making them take slightly more damage from all sources. The effects of every hit would be minor - say 4% mobility decrease and damage increase - but they would stack, so someone hit five times would be 20% less manoeuvrable and take 20% extra damage from all attacks. The effects of every shot would wear off after three seconds, and there would be a maximum penalty of perhaps 40%. This would make a great support weapon, but have the drawback of forcing the user to fight alongside teammates if they hope to actually kill anything - a special medal would also be awarded for every player killed while under the influence of the freeze effect.

I don't think there should be set damage for getting hit by certain types of enemies - if a Grunt hits you at a slow speed, for example, it shouldn't do the same damage as if it were jet-propelled into your face. Far better that, like vehicles, everything gets assigned a 'weight' value and then damage is calculated using that and the speed it was travelling upon impact. For example, let's say a Spartan has a weight of 1'W', and a grunt has a weight of 0.2'W'. Then let's say that a Spartan corpse needs to hit you at a speed of 10'S' to kill you at full Health and Shield. A Grunt, weighing five times less than a Spartan, would need to hit five times faster, or at 50'S' in order to do the same damage. Likewise, a Jackal might weigh 0.1'W' and a Hunter might weigh 4'W'. In this case, a Jackal needs to move at 100'S' to do the same damage, while a Hunter only needs to move at 2.5'S' to do so.

Nah, armour customisation is to make your Spartan look good for yourself. It's not to make it look good to other people.

The honest truth is that I'm completely indifferent to what the default helmet is. Everyone is just going to customise it to something else anyway. Besides, when you're looking at someone in a game you're trying to work out the best way to kill them, not deciding how good their armour looks.

Good luck, I hope this helps and that your study goes well!

He was. See the first post I made.