Support upgrades and tactical packages are a great idea. The upgrades can be used to cater to your play style. However they need to be balanced. Do you think these upgrades are a good idea?
They seem to be alright to me.
Unnecessary but im ok with them i guess.
Why not? Mix things up a little.
If they are minor asymmetrical advantages that are balanced and not allow players to not show up on the radar, have resistance to grenade damage or have any weird stuff that allows a player to earn ordnance drops quicker than others, then i think the idea of support upgrades/tactical packages could be a cool addition.
So far, i haven’t see any of those things yet so it’s not as bad as some think. Still, i do hope there is a playlist (and not some isolated custom game) that doesn’t have these mechanics come into play.
> If they are minor asymmetrical advantages that are balanced and not allow players to not show up on the radar, have resistance to grenade damage or have any weird stuff that allows a player to earn ordnance drops quicker than others, then i think the idea of of support upgrades/tactical packages could be a cool addition.
Yeah they should be cool but not op.
They add more variety to a player’s style of playing the game. I love that idea!
I’m pretty indifferent. I don’t think they bring anything radical.
> Why not? <mark>Mix things up a little.</mark>
I see what you did there.
I don’t like them because they limit players abilities, and turns the game into a game of “I have this, you don’t, so I win :D”. A perk that allows you to pick up grenades off fallen bodies means in order to exist people who don’t have it can’t, and such a perk gives a player an obvious advantage over others that don’t have it. Being ‘balanced’ doesn’t mean it’s fair, and the two words are often being used interchangeably. These kind of systems create an asymmetric game, where often the choices made before you spawn are the most critical. I don’t like such games.
> I don’t like them because they limit players abilities, and turns the game into a game of “I have this, you don’t, so I win :D”. A perk that allows you to pick up grenades off fallen bodies means in order to exist people who don’t have it can’t, and such a perk gives a player an obvious advantage over others that don’t have it. Being ‘balanced’ doesn’t mean it’s fair, and the two words are often being used interchangeably. These kind of systems create an asymmetric game, where often the choices made before you spawn are the most critical. I don’t like such games.
Well I think if there properly balanced they should be fine. For example someone using the tactical package that enables them to pick up grenades can’t use the package that make your shield recharge quicker. But 343i need to make sure one package isn’t loads better than the rest. But we should be fine.
It’s funny how Forum noobs come in here with these topics asking the community questions and actually wanting their opinions on what they would like or dislike. One could think they were devs hiding in plain sight 
Whatever the devs add, they add, i’m always going to play Halo. Yeah the’ll be things they add that I won’t like, but hey I love Halo and I will learn to deal with them. It’s called “adapting”.
Edit: I totally didn’t add anything to the thread, lmao. But anyway, yeah, balance is the key when adding new things to Halo’s MM. OP features cause alot of rage, and no one wants Halo 4’s pop to be like Reach’s. I know I don’t. I still find matches in no time, but after almost two years i’ve ran into alot of the same people numerous times. Even ones I avoided, lol.