Tactical Strike

[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.