Does anyone believe MLG will return to halo now? news says that MLG is now working with microsoft to host tournaments at microsoft stores. Perhaps this could mean a MLG return to Halo on the xbox 1 and that would be awesome. I have always wanted to be an mlg pro. I was going to be one for halo 4 but MlG bailed.
It all depends on the state of the partnership with -Yoink!- Gaming and Microsoft, and the state of competitive multiplayer in Halo 5.
Does anyone know about the deal between Microsoft and -Yoink!- Gaming?
Details such as how long their partnership will last by contract?
At least we have AGL for now. 
It’s a longshot with Halo’s history pertaining to Reach and Halo 4, but if Halo 5 turns things around just enough so that we get a polished built in skill system similar to Halo 2’s, and we get a serious decrease in magnetism/auto-aim, we might just swing MLG back to us.
if they bring back reach strafe mech and hit registration. and 4v4 symmetrical maps
That relies on 343 creating a game that is based on skill. The reason Halo was dropped by MLG is because Reach and 4 were terrible to play competitively.
If 343 builds a game with the same core as Halo 2 & 3, then maybe MLG will pick it back up.
To be truthful and sorry if this ticks off the MLG fans, but I don’t want them to pick it back up. Now you are probably asking your self " why would you ever say something so blasphemous DarkHaven?" Well I’ll tell you why! Halo should never be designed around one group of players. yes competitive game play is uber important for even some casual players, but to have this game developed for a minuscule group of Halo fans and thats what the MLG really is, is kinda moronic. You have to build the game around all the different groups that play, be they uber competitive, normal competitive, casual, forgers, or even campaign players. Should the different groups be given options, yes, but the games should never be tailor made for on set of players and that seems to be what some of the MLG players want.
Now again I’m not here to bash MLG guys but thats just my opinion. If 343 gives into one group it is to the detriment of all of the others and thats just no bueno.
I would hope so.
MLG playlist in Reach was always one of my favorites, just because of the way the game worked, as opposed to the rest of Reach. Some of the maps were reworked to fit the competitive play-style to, which shows that they at least put some effort in it.
I believe Halo 5 should be a game that returns more to Halo 3’s gameplay, and requires skill. The MLG side should just be a more skilled, competitive side of that.
No I don’t think so unless some kind of deal happens and COD ghost I heard will be the flagship game for MLG pro circuit in 2014. Maybe in 2015 or sometime in the later years.
> To be truthful and sorry if this ticks off the MLG fans, but I don’t want them to pick it back up. Now you are probably asking your self " why would you ever say something so blasphemous DarkHaven?" Well I’ll tell you why! Halo should never be designed around one group of players. yes competitive game play is uber important for even some casual players, but to have this game developed for a minuscule group of Halo fans and thats what the MLG really is, is kinda moronic. You have to build the game around all the different groups that play, be they uber competitive, normal competitive, casual, forgers, or even campaign players. Should the different groups be given options, yes, but the games should never be tailor made for on set of players and that seems to be what some of the MLG players want.
>
> Now again I’m not here to bash MLG guys but thats just my opinion. If 343 gives into one group it is to the detriment of all of the others and thats just no bueno.
Isn’t that all 343i does is cater to noob cod payers now? There should be options for every group so that everyone is happy reach and 4 caters to noobs and casuals so that microsoft can make a few extra dollars.
@DARKHAVEN
A game that is designed with competitive balance will play well in a casual setting, simply because good balance makes gameplay more fun.
Does that mean that a regular matchmade game should have no sensors or vehicles? Of course not.
Does it mean that we should have default starts and actual map control? (No POD or RandOD, on-map spawns for equipment and weapons) Absolutely.
I’ve never played competitive Halo in my life, but I enjoy Halo 3 more than I do Reach and 4.
If MLG picks up the next Halo, it will be because said Halo will have a solid, balanced foundation around which competitive settings can be built.
I definitely agree with your position that all groups of gamers should be given options to change how the game works (something that Halo is known for, because of Forge and Customs), but the way Halo 4’s matchmaking is set up, it doesn’t provide enough balance to make the game consistent and fun, even for casuals. (Being Boltshotted or suicide-stuck is just as annoying whether you are MLG or not)
I can understand that you might be worried about the next Halo being punishingly difficult and less fun for those who aren’t tryhards, but Halos 1-3 had the commonly accepted standards of balance (equal starts, on-map weapons and equipment) and they were all well-received by competitive players and people who just play for fun.
I just have to ask, what experience do you have with Halos outside of Reach and/or 4?
> @DARKHAVEN
>
> A game that is designed with competitive balance will play well in a casual setting, simply because good balance makes gameplay more fun.
>
> Does that mean that a regular matchmade game should have no sensors or vehicles? Of course not.
>
> Does it mean that we should have default starts and actual map control? (No POD or RandOD, on-map spawns for equipment and weapons) Absolutely.
>
> I’ve never played competitive Halo in my life, but I enjoy Halo 3 more than I do Reach and 4.
>
> If MLG picks up the next Halo, it will be because said Halo will have a solid, balanced foundation around which competitive settings can be built.
>
> I definitely agree with your position that all groups of gamers should be given options to change how the game works (something that Halo is known for, because of Forge and Customs), but the way Halo 4’s matchmaking is set up, it doesn’t provide enough balance to make the game consistent and fun, even for casuals. (Being Boltshotted or suicide-stuck is just as annoying whether you are MLG or not)
>
> I can understand that you might be worried about the next Halo being punishingly difficult and less fun for those who aren’t tryhards, but Halos 1-3 had the commonly accepted standards of balance (equal starts, on-map weapons and equipment) and they were all well-received by competitive players and people who just play for fun.
>
> <mark>I just have to ask, what experience do you have with Halos outside of Reach and/or 4?</mark>
My experience is with all of the games, I bought the first halo not to long after the original xbox came out and have bought the new ones ever since.
I agree halo needs to be competitive, and I said that everyone will agree with that, or most will, but my problem is with a brand that got its start due to Halo all of a sudden starts dictating how a game will be. To me thats what it seems like. The 'well maybe we will bring you back if you have your game like this" bull -Yoink- pisses me off. And then to have players come out and say that MLG standard is the only standard they will play to irks me even more. Yes Halo should be geared towards competitive play while also being geared towards the other areas that I stated. But when you have a minority of players go out and say we wouldn’t play this unless you do it this way and screw the other groups its not right. We have had this debate for the last 3 games and its probably going to continue for the rest of them.
Should 343 add in options to edit game play so that these groups can make the game to their sometimes insane standard, sure as long as it doesn’t effect the game for everyone else it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. But when you have a group saying do it this way or we won’t play your game in our tourney’s 343i should look them right in the eye and tell them to -Yoink- off.
That’s just my thoughts. Should the MLG type groups have a say at the table yes just like every other group. But should the minority have a large say than groups that maybe larger no and when that happens I will be leaving Halo behind.
> > @DARKHAVEN
> >
> > A game that is designed with competitive balance will play well in a casual setting, simply because good balance makes gameplay more fun.
> >
> > Does that mean that a regular matchmade game should have no sensors or vehicles? Of course not.
> >
> > Does it mean that we should have default starts and actual map control? (No POD or RandOD, on-map spawns for equipment and weapons) Absolutely.
> >
> > I’ve never played competitive Halo in my life, but I enjoy Halo 3 more than I do Reach and 4.
> >
> > If MLG picks up the next Halo, it will be because said Halo will have a solid, balanced foundation around which competitive settings can be built.
> >
> > I definitely agree with your position that all groups of gamers should be given options to change how the game works (something that Halo is known for, because of Forge and Customs), but the way Halo 4’s matchmaking is set up, it doesn’t provide enough balance to make the game consistent and fun, even for casuals. (Being Boltshotted or suicide-stuck is just as annoying whether you are MLG or not)
> >
> > I can understand that you might be worried about the next Halo being punishingly difficult and less fun for those who aren’t tryhards, but Halos 1-3 had the commonly accepted standards of balance (equal starts, on-map weapons and equipment) and they were all well-received by competitive players and people who just play for fun.
> >
> > <mark>I just have to ask, what experience do you have with Halos outside of Reach and/or 4?</mark>
>
> My experience is with all of the games, I bought the first halo not to long after the original xbox came out and have bought the new ones ever since.
>
> I agree halo needs to be competitive, and I said that everyone will agree with that, or most will, but my problem is with a brand that got its start due to Halo all of a sudden starts dictating how a game will be. To me thats what it seems like. The 'well maybe we will bring you back if you have your game like this" bull Yoink! pisses me off. And then to have players come out and say that MLG standard is the only standard they will play to irks me even more. Yes Halo should be geared towards competitive play while also being geared towards the other areas that I stated. But when you have a minority of players go out and say we wouldn’t play this unless you do it this way and screw the other groups its not right. We have had this debate for the last 3 games and its probably going to continue for the rest of them.
>
> Should 343 add in options to edit game play so that these groups can make the game to their sometimes insane standard, sure as long as it doesn’t effect the game for everyone else it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. But when you have a group saying do it this way or we won’t play your game in our tourney’s 343i should look them right in the eye and tell them to -Yoink!- off.
>
> That’s just my thoughts. Should the MLG type groups have a say at the table yes just like every other group. But should the minority have a large say than groups that maybe larger no and when that happens I will be leaving Halo behind.
your looking at things too narrowly. Your only seeing that mlg is trying to make halo uber competitive. They don’t want halo to just be a place for try yards they are just trying to insure that halos competitive roots remain intact. You know those Thi Gs that made halo great.