Tactical Strike

[Reaper]

its an army upgrade i thought of since i saw Salvanous. basically, the Army uses its Army Credits for a Tactical Strike and it causes all vehicles on the enemy's side to NOT spawn at start and the respawn for even a mongoose while take a while to come back. suggestions?

[bazongaman502]

or have the enemy team not have vehicals at all... brings an even harder challenge... the enemy team has to complete the objective without a vehical or they have to be sneaky and steal one

[VerbotenDonkey]

Oh boy ... prepare for a Myth-storm xD

[UNLUCKY NUM13ER]

Yea, it's a good idea but too complicated to create.

[Maxdoggy]

NO. STOP IT. YOU ARE PLANNING ON BREAKING HALO AND THE ESSENCE OF THIS COMMUNITY. DON'T DO IT. RUN WHILE YOU CAN BEFORE THE MYTH-STORM! RUN!!!

[Mythonian]

Oh boy ... prepare for a Myth-storm xD


NO. STOP IT. YOU ARE PLANNING ON BREAKING HALO AND THE ESSENCE OF THIS COMMUNITY. DON'T DO IT. RUN WHILE YOU CAN BEFORE THE MYTH-STORM! RUN!!!

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s206/Mythonian/lawl/110_4151691.gif

[silversleek]

no.

[Reaper]

Yea, good point. No vehicles then. Myth.... what do you think?

[VerbotenDonkey]

Lmao. That is waaay too unbalanced.

[Mythonian]

Yea, good point. No vehicles then. Myth.... what do you think?

Well, personally I'm trying to focus on this war more so.

Chances are with how this war has been going recently, this will be the last war on Reach.

With that in mind, we'll have to wait until H4 comes out so we can comprehend the possibilities.

Until then, feel free to continue thinking up random suggestions. Even if it's currently impossible in Reach, if H4 allows it to be implemented in a fun and balanced way, I'd be all for it.

[Reaper]

who knows Myth, maybe the Blues will surrendur and we'll have another war on Reach

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Well, personally I'm trying to focus on this war more so.

Chances are with how this war has been going recently, this will be the last war on Reach.

With that in mind, we'll have to wait until H4 comes out so we can comprehend the possibilities.

Until then, feel free to continue thinking up random suggestions. Even if it's currently impossible in Reach, if H4 allows it to be implemented in a fun and balanced way, I'd be all for it.

I hope that Halo 4's forge is advanced enough for Myth to create a fully balanced and operational frigate game mode for the wars.

[Puba]

I hope that Halo 4's forge is advanced enough for Myth to create a fully balanced and operational frigate game mode for the wars.if we had firgate battles i would nerdgasm in the middle of the match ;)

[Reaper]

i would love for forge with metal walls with the walls being able to break. That way the Frigate vs Frigate battles would seem more realistic.

[Kuhblam]

A novel idea.

However, it would cause complications getting the maps ready for Mythonian as well as cause some major balancing issues/rage quit massacres. Something like this is best avoided.

~Kuhblam

[MedeDust]

A novel idea.

However, it would cause complications getting the maps ready for Mythonian as well as cause some major balancing issues/rage quit massacres. Something like this is best avoided.

~Kuhblam

Nobel*

[Maxdoggy]

Nobel*

Nope. "Novel" is proper in that situation.

In other words, Mede, shut up! :P

[MedeDust]

Nope. "Novel" is proper in that situation.

In other words, Mede, shut up! :P

You killed a scene Max -__- shame on you.

[Link2Halo]

The Myth Storm didn't come!

[Vestige]

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s206/Mythonian/lawl/110_4151691.gif

Shit.

[Nocte]

It could be unbalanced, but that isn't the reason why I'd hate it.

Fuck playing Halo with no vehicles. We've already had massive discussions on making sure the community isn't suppose to be like an MLG tourney. Yet you wanna give a perk to make sure it goes down like that!? No.

Besides people who hate playing a map like Hem. without vehicles. It would be slow, boring, and an instant loss.

[Reaper]

no cause it only cause one side to not have vehicles. the other side will and the other army will have to steal those vehicles if they want any

[bazongaman502]

no cause it only cause one side to not have vehicles. the other side will and the other army will have to steal those vehicles if they want any

basically its allowing one side to play normally, while the other has to be a little more sneaky... Hem would be a hard map to do this one, however its not like it cannot be done... you just need to know what to do

[Graycochea]

plasma pistoling hardcore.

[OPOC1L1PSE]

It could be pretty interesting, won't know till you try it.

[Anarchy]

You can simply change the properties of all one side's vehicles to "Spawn at start: no". We don't have to go with not having vehicles at all.

Either way, I'm against it. But it wouldn't break the game...

[Link2Halo]

I think if this could be done right it would be very interesting.

[Coda]

What we could do to test how this works, is to rally a group together, and make sure one team's vehicles don't spawn. This would have to be done on various maps. Teams would take turns on having their vehicles gone for the testing. It would be like a simulation for the game night, to see how something like that would turn out. If there are enough volunteers, I'm sure we could at least test it out to see if the team without vehicles has a chance on winning a map like hem without the vehicles at their base.

Personally, I think this would just make thins unbalanced on the war... But, we won't know for sure without testing it. So, I volunteer to test it if other people want to as well.

[Reaper]

Since we are going to have another Reach War and it is Peace Time right now, i would like to reintroduce this idea.

[Graycochea]

I second the motion.

[Link2Halo]

I forward it.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

I'm still not a fan of it.

When someone makes a competitive map it has a certain feel and flow. Certain maps are better played with or without vehicles depending on this flow, for example: Imagine trying to play Hemorrhage without vehicles . . . moving around the map would be slow, and dull. Now imagine playing Guardian from Halo 3 where each team would get a mongoose or ghost, it just doesn't flow. Another good example of this is Snowbound or Boundless from Halo 3, the ghost on that map was basically useless and hardly ever used, it didn't flow properly with the map.

I hope that kind of helps explain flow . . . it's 4:45 right now and I just can't get to sleep.

BUT back to my original point: In the past I've noticed that Forerunner Conflict, while still being a War-Sim, focuses mostly around competitively sound maps and game play; and when you structure a map competitively you have to constantly be thinking of about a hundred billion different factors (yes . . . that was an exaggeration). For one, every time you create a space on a map, be it a room, a pathway around the main "Hot Zones" of batte, or a few crates spaced next to a building you have to think: What is the purpose of this area? How will it effect game play? And etc. Vehicles are major contributors to game play, they are GAME CHANGERS, especially on larger maps. When you purposely build a map with vehicle game play in mind you can't just take away the vehicles . . . for one team or both, it just doesn't work and it ruins the flow and competitiveness of the map.

Now all of those rules only apply because Forerunner Conflict still abides by a competitive structure (whether or not you like it . . .). We all have equal starts (or supposedly depending on how you feel about some maps), we place power weapons and power ups in positions that we have to fight for (meaning that usually the most skilled team will get control of them) and spawns are not randomized throughout the map (you will always spawn at your base or side of the map, even if EVERY SINGLE ENEMY on the other team is base raping you). I'm sure there is more I'm not thinking of but I don't care right now . . . it's late and I'm tired.

Again, all of those rules apply because FC follows a competitive structure of game play. Here is another downer, realism and competitiveness don't go hand in hand, in fact, one usually hurts the other. Here is a quote from one of the users in the Halo Council, I don't remember his name, nor will I bother to look:

"Let it be said that realism is almost always a hindrance and distraction to real skill, though it is important to note when this is significant. For example, it is entirely realistic that a rocket launcher would take some amount of time to reload (though not entirely realistic that someone can do it while running at full speed) – this is a good thing. It plays to the concept of risk & reward as well as a balance between power and vulnerability. An example of realism clouding the picture, on the other hand, would be bloom. Bloom is a characteristic of shooting games that is implemented solely to mimic real life limitations, but the fact of the matter is that bloom doesn’t cater to a skill. If the controller was violently churning in your hands as you attempted to fire on your opponent, then maybe that would be a case for its validity, but as it stands, bloom is a frustratingly needless feature in games with built spread already built in. But, I digress."

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Well, it's completely realistic that one side of an army might not have the same amount of vehicles as the other or the better vehicles than the other, but it terms of competitive play, if one side has less vehicles or worse vehicles than the other than the map is imbalanced. So ultimately, the inclusion of this perk basically is determined by whether or not FC goes complete realistic war-sim on us or they stay in their normal competitive state.

If, FC tries to become a truly realistic war-simulator (advantages for certain armies because of certain events, natural advantages/ disadvantages, etc.) than it's cool that maybe one side will lose its vehicles for one game because say a Special Operations group infiltrated their base one day and wrecked them before the battle, but, and I will continue to stress this, that WILL, MOST ABSOLUTELY, MOST POSITIVELY, RUIN the balance of that map and game.

That's all I have time for, and I hope that makes sense. I am neutral on the basic of whether or not FC stays as it is or becomes a stone-blooded actual War-Simulator. However, I am not neutral about the Tactical Strike. The idea should not be implemented if FC stays as it is, being competitively structured in terms of map design.

Still, that's my opinion.

[Reaper]

And thats why it should be a really expensive thing to get with army credits since its a gamechanger for the fact one side will still have vehicles.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

And thats why it should be a really expensive thing to get with army credits since its a gamechanger for the fact one side will still have vehicles.

Ok, but it also almost secures victory for the team that has vehicles. Even if the package is expensive, it isn't fair and I don't know if any one actually want that if this was put in practice.

[IrelandWolf]

That would also require map changing, so every map that we use would need to have three additional maps made for this. One for where REDD vehicles don't spawn, one fro BLUE vehicle don't spawn, and one for both army's vehicles don't spawn in the beginning. With all these new maps for our battles, it might get confusing on which map is the proper one to use. I vote no.