H5:G. All-out warfare.

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

H5: Guardians, as we all know, will be the next big installment of the franchise and is being built specifically for the Xbox One. Using the next-gen console, the possibilities are breathtaking. They have already told us 60 FPS, among other things, is one of their key targets. That’s twice the framerate of H3.

I would like to propose a new addition to the matchmaking lineup: Warfare.

With the new console comes a tremendous growth in the number of players a game can support. This is evident in BF4’s ability to host sixty-four players within a single game. That’s ridiculous. Imagine if something of the sort was added to Halo.

I’ll let you ponder that for a moment…

Yeah, it’s chaotic, isn’t it. Just imagine… Asymmetrical attack-defend objective maps, heavies with massive amounts of ordnance, players functioning in fireteams. Heck, with a proper clan system this would propel clan battles to a whole new level. Would also make for some awesome invasion games.

This also opens up the potential for a massive increase in what you, as a player, can wield in your armory. The possibilities this would open up are infinite. Dropping in a fireteam using a pelican, riding on the sides of tanks again, massive air encounters, and so so much more. I mean, imagine what it would be like in a purely infantry game!

I’m just going to list some more of the possibilities that I can think of:
Dropping in using drop pods, using target designators in matchmaking, possibility of more new vehicles and returns of possibly all prior ones, strategy evolving to a large-scale level in Halo, expanding Halo into a niche that Battlefield has had an iron fist on for consoles, Dominion evolving into an immensely popular playlist with all sorts of bells and whistles, and oh so much more. I’ll update post with a lot of other ideas that both you and I come up with in the future.

What would you like to see in a 64-player game of Halo?

2

Jumping right up to a player count of 64 might be too drastic of a departure. I would be more comfortable with 32.

3

> Jumping right up to a player count of 64 might be too drastic of a departure. I would be more comfortable with 32.

It is a bit of a leap, isn’t it?

Let me quote Frankie on a few things:

> We are moving to a whole new platform with the Xbox One – a new architecture, new graphics hardware and bluntly some new ways to think about gaming, period.

> …in building Halo 5: Guardians, we want to push the ecosystem as well as the universe. And we’ll have some surprises in store for new and loyal players of the series.

4

32 vs 32 is a little too much for me. 12 vs 12 is as high as I’d ever want the player count to get.

5

No, it has nothing to do with any technical limitations. The needs of a 64 player game are completely different from a 16 player game. You are essentially trying to shove two different games into one and the game will not be better for it.

Either the small scale side would suffer, the large scale would suffer, or they both would.

As I said in the other ‘64 player’ thread, it does not matter how good or bad the game would be, it is a matter of genre. The highest we should ever go in the ‘core’ Halo series would be 24(even then I would prefer we stick with 16).

I hate the idea of a 64 player ‘Halo’ game, I love the idea of a 64 player game set in the Halo universe.

We are a franchise, there is absolutely no reason why should try to cater to everyone’s needs or desires with one title. I would much rather see a large scale Halo game be unrestricted by the mechanics of the original series. It would be a perfect opportunity to add in things people have been asking for for years. Playable Marines vs a variety of playable Covy species, ODST drops, all kinds of things. I hate custom loadouts in Halo 4, but I would be fine with it in a spinoff since they would be designed for it from he ground up, not hastily thrown on to conform to a ‘modern’ standard that is completely arbitrary to begin with.

Many things that would have flat out not worked in the original series, can potentially be utilized in a spin-off title.

6

32- and 64-player multiplayer battles have been around for a long time. The reason that they’ve never become popular is not because the technology and resources were limited, but because the more players are in a game, the less of an impact a single player has. Players want to feel like they’re capable of having an influence on the game.

The amount of changes you’d have to make to Halo gameplay to make this “work” are more than just a few. It would have to be a completely different game–as different as Battlefield is from CoD. So not in a main game, but perhaps in a spin-off. But since Battlefield already exists, I see no reason to make Halo Battlefield game anyway.

7

If they made a Halo game outside the main series specifically to be a massive warfare game, then wouldn’t that be simply putting a different skin on Battlefield? I know sixty-four players is extreme, I was just throwing it out there to show what we already know is capable and the implications that it could have in the Halo franchise. Perhaps thirty players (roughly three fireteams per team) would be a better number. Even then, it would still be comparable to a larger player count.

8

> If they made a Halo game outside the main series specifically to be a massive warfare game, then wouldn’t that be simply putting a different skin on Battlefield?

Halo is simply putting a skin on Quake then.

The Halo universe has many things the Battlefield one does not. Though I am concerned about how Infantry would work in such a game.

I’d have to agree it would probably make more sense to make it a standalone title than try to fit it into one playlist. Though I suppose a smaller ~20v20 type could work within the game itself.

9

> If they made a Halo game outside the main series specifically to be a massive warfare game, then wouldn’t that be simply putting a different skin on Battlefield? I know sixty-four players is extreme, I was just throwing it out there to show what we already know is capable and the implications that it could have in the Halo franchise. Perhaps thirty players (roughly three fireteams per team) would be a better number. Even then, it would still be comparable to a larger player count.

Its just an example, the point was that if we are going to increase the player count in any significant manner, it should be done in a separate title.

Its not as if BF is a monopoly on class based shooters. It be like saying why do we have Starcraft if Command and Conquer already existed.

10

I see the point of to large a number for multiplayer / causing individual player to feel less effective, but what about a very large firefight…more players (I like the drop pod idea) and vehicles in play against more AI Covies? I think it feels different playing against AIs…perhaps more rewarding for the individual in a very large firefight setting because the players are all working together as a team or combat unit against AI. I think a large firefight could be very fun…as long as everyone does not have rockets…

11

I don’t know that huge player counts would mesh well with Halo. It is very important to remember that maps have to match gameplay. In order to have huge player counts we would need multiple maps the size of Forge World.

12

I’d have nothing against the player count being theoretically unlimited (unfortunately, the hardware would). But I seem to remember Battlefield devs talking about how the quality of gameplay is reduced when you raise the player count too high, with each individual player becoming less and less relevant. It’s something 343 would have to playtest, but I’d imagine the matchmaking limit would be around 12 to 16 players per side.

13

I don’t even want to think about coordinating with 31 other teammates…

14

> I don’t even want to think about coordinating with 31 other teammates…

I know right? I can’t even coordinate with 5, who just feed all damn game.

15

Impossible to say without understanding how H5G will play.

Will vehicles be more than the frail constructs of Halo 4? Will infantry combat be interesting enough to keep players on their feet and not devolve into a vehicle slug fest?

Will the weapons sandbox bring enough variety and range to make such a large scale game interesting? Or will it become a power weapon rehash of Halo 4?

How the heck do you design such large maps so they are actually fun to play on?

Will the community want to play anything other than slayer on such a large setup? How will you make objective gametypes engaging without devolving into slayer stalemates?

The only way I see this potentially working is if there were smaller squad objectives or front lines, each playing to a larger, unified objective. Coordination across 30 players will never happen otherwise.

Dominion and Extraction could work at this level, and maybe a multi-bomb variant. Slayer could work, obviously.

16

64 players seems to much.

17

If the maps are anything like BF4 (size wise) I’d still say the maximum should be 16 v 16. I’m talking about maps that have buildings with multiple floors and then some

18

> Impossible to say without understanding how H5G will play.
>
> Will vehicles be more than the frail constructs of Halo 4? Will infantry combat be interesting enough to keep players on their feet and not devolve into a vehicle slug fest?
>
> Will the weapons sandbox bring enough variety and range to make such a large scale game interesting? Or will it become a power weapon rehash of Halo 4?
>
> How the heck do you design such large maps so they are actually fun to play on?
>
> Will the community want to play anything other than slayer on such a large setup? How will you make objective gametypes engaging without devolving into slayer stalemates?
>
> The only way I see this potentially working is if there were smaller squad objectives or front lines, each playing to a larger, unified objective. Coordination across 30 players will never happen otherwise.
>
> Dominion and Extraction could work at this level, and maybe a multi-bomb variant. Slayer could work, obviously.

This would be insane! If each “fireteam” is given a separate mission, then that would promote teamwork in all sorts of new ways. You would have to rally your fireteam to PTO in order for your team to win. You would also have to weigh the risks of sending players to supplement numbers at other objectives and whatnot. I like it!

19

> Jumping right up to a player count of 64 might be too drastic of a departure. I would be more comfortable with 32.

I have to agree.

I must admit I have always wanted to play Halo with 64,128 or 256 players. On extremely large maps with Drivable Scarabs, Mammoths, Phantoms, Pelicans, and other Vehicles from the Halo Universe (Halo Wars).

But think this is too big a jump. An improved evolved version of Invasion and Dominion would work perfectly for this. But have to still go with 32 players max at this point. And this would only have Invasion and Dominion as its dedicated playlist and perhaps a Massive Team Battle.

I will try locate a post where 64 players is the subject, and many people like the idea, they see many faults problems with it, due to Halo unique Sand Box. If this could be a class base game, then perhaps it may work better.

POST FOUND: https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst233035p18_64-Person-Multiplayer.aspx

20

I’m a fan of this idea unless it gets taken too far. First things first, bigger maps. That may seem obvious but you just have to clarify that point, it could make or break the playlist. And to add more of a personal touch I would like it to be more than a 10 minute game. If you have that many players in there you need to make the time limit a pretty decent length along with a score being set pretty high. If you’re going for all out warfare there needs to be a sense of dig yourself in at first and try to move from there. Otherwise it would be mad chaos, somewhat fun chaos that loses out on some of it’s potential.

Maybe it could also reward you for actually playing the designated mode, unless it’s slayer. If you’re playing CTF and everyone else is just killing while you score, there needs to be an immediate return for that. Maybe it’s a speed boost when you pick up the flag again or next time you pick up a flag the team doesn’t see that giant “Kill” symbol above your head for at maybe 15 seconds. This could at least present more routes to go through on maps like Ragnarok where you always always always go out the front man cannon.

Like I said, I enjoy the idea but there needs to be a proper reward system for those who actually play the mode like they enjoy it. And I can’t stress how much ADDITIONAL POINTS DON’T WORK!!!