Halo Battle Royale: A BR unlike any other

Before you disregard my idea just because it’s a battle royale, please hear me out. Over the past couple of months I have been playing the various battle royale games such as Fortnite, Apex Legends, Blackout from black ops 4, etc. And to be completely honest, I enjoyed my time playing them. However, after thinking about why I stopped playing and asking people that hate the battle royale genre, I think I have found a way to make battle royale games fun. In the text below I will highlight some key concerns I have heard from people concerning battle royale games, and in which ways I propose they are fixed. The game I have in mind is an ODST battle royale game, I will explain how this will help fix the BR issues while still making sense. One last point, I do want this to be a conversation, so if you have suggestions or comments, don’t be afraid to leave them. Now, let us begin.

Gameplay
Probably the biggest critique I see against BR games is the sense of luck involved. It can be extremely frustrating dropping somewhere and finding no guns for the next 5 minutes, meanwhile, some kid finds the best weapon in the game in a matter of seconds and kills you instantly. Luck is something BR games use a lot of, will you get a good gun at the beginning of the game? Will you find shields? Will a kid build a 30 feet high tower and camp there the entire game? Who knows! Nothing is certain in these types of games, and although some people might say that’s what makes the game exciting, to the majority, it’s frustrating. So what I propose is taking the luck out of the game and make it solely be based on skill. In the next few points I will tell you my ideas as to how this can be achieved.

  1. Loadouts
    My first point is to allow players to start the game with two guns of their choice. If you played Halo 3 ODST you know that ODSTs can insert guns on the side of the pods so that when the pod lands, they can be easily unmounted. Now you might be thinking, “well can they pick any two guns from halo?”, and to this I say no. Only a selected few “starter” guns will be allowed to be chosen, such as a battle rifle, a magnum, plasma rifle, etc. By doing this, the game is more fair; If I land and I have the battle rifle and you, the enemy, have a magnum, it means that those are our best weapons from the bunch and so it makes the playing field more balanced and fair when the bullets start flying.

  2. No Loot
    My second point is to get rid of loot all together. There will be no chests, no care-packages, no guns laying on the ground, etc. Instead I propose a point system, much like in Halo 5’s Warzone mode. Instead of allowing lucky noobs to find the best guns and loot, players will have to earn everything they have. How are these points earned? Simple, by playing the game. Each time a player gets a kill, completes an objective (more on this later), revives a teammate, or something else, the player will earns points. After a player earns points, he/she can then go to a designated terminal and spend their credits on weapons, ammo, healing materials, vehicles, etc. Obviously some stuff will cost more than others. But this does two things for the game, it adds a sense of reward for actually playing instead of hiding, and it adds risk to the game. Let’s say you have 2,000 points but the sniper rifle is 2,500 points. Do you risk getting a few more kills for the gun or instead spend the points now on some not-so-good guns but potentially win the next fight? This puts the choices in the player’s hands instead of RNG.
    One more thing, another annoying thing in Fortnite or Apex is picking up loot after getting a kill. Let’s say I’m looking for this specific gun and so I kill 15 people in the hopes that they have it, but all they stuff they have is worse than what I have. Then what? There’s no sense of reward for the various kills I got other than some exp when the game is done. So instead, when a player gets a kill, the player will be able to pickup the dead player’s credits. That way, if you kill those 15 people, you can then go spend all of those credits on something really good. But this also adds more risk, in the example about the sniper rifle in the last paragraph, knowing that if you die someone else gets your hard-earned credits can lead to a player having to double think not spending the credits. Furthermore, by allowing players to buy the guns they want, there’s none of this " I’m really good with the sniper rifle but I spent the whole game looking for one and didn’t find one" while someone else found one and kills you from far away. If you notice, most players will always go for the same guns during every match of a BR game. So why make them wander around looking for them while someone else has their best guns already? Just give the player the guns he/she wants and let the fight be a fierce and exciting one where they are both giving it their all.

  3. Ranks
    My last point involves matchmaking. I have no clue why no other BR game has implemented this before. It’s EXTREMELY frustrating playing a game in which everyone plays like they’ve never played a game before in their lives, but then the next game you play against someone that’s 20 times as good as you and kills you without even trying. A ranking system adds more to the game. It’s not all about the “wins” you have, because in reality, wins tell you nothing. Sure maybe you won 30 games but in all of those you hid until the very end, while someone else only has 3 wins but they are extremely good but are always in a fight. A ranking system would make the game more fair and more fun. Bad players can feel the excitement of being in the top 5 and actually standing a chance, while a really good player can feel the excitement of playing with people as good as them. And I know you might be thinking, “well this would only split the player base and make games harder to find”, and I think you are right. So instead, have both a quick-match in which you get put into a game as quickly as possible with other people in quick-match, and a competitive mode in which you are ranked.

If you have made it this far, thank you. I put a lot of thought into this and I would absolutely love a game like it. The truth is that halo needs to innovate to stay alive. A lot of the player base has left and there needs to be something new that brings them back. I hope even a few people read this and enjoyed it. Whether this will get anything going is unlikely, but I just wanted to speak my mind. I do have more ideas about the game such as the objectives, classes/abilities, etc. If you guys would like to hear about them I would be more than glad to share. But until then, thank you for your time.

Me personally? I’m still not sold even if this is how it went down. For me, I just don’t enjoy the concept of being thrown into a landing zone with 49 other players to brawl it out and see how comes out on top.

> 2533274860627685;1:
> Before you disregard my idea just because it’s a battle royale, please hear me out. Over the past couple of months I have been playing the various battle royale games such as Fortnite, Apex Legends, Blackout from black ops 4, etc. And to be completely honest, I enjoyed my time playing them. However, after thinking about why I stopped playing and asking people that hate the battle royale genre, I think I have found a way to make battle royale games fun. In the text below I will highlight some key concerns I have heard from people concerning battle royale games, and in which ways I propose they are fixed. The game I have in mind is an ODST battle royale game, I will explain how this will help fix the BR issues while still making sense. One last point, I do want this to be a conversation, so if you have suggestions or comments, don’t be afraid to leave them. Now, let us begin.
>
> GameplayProbably the biggest critique I see against BR games is the sense of luck involved. It can be extremely frustrating dropping somewhere and finding no guns for the next 5 minutes, meanwhile, some kid finds the best weapon in the game in a matter of seconds and kills you instantly. Luck is something BR games use a lot of, will you get a good gun at the beginning of the game? Will you find shields? Will a kid build a 30 feet high tower and camp there the entire game? Who knows! Nothing is certain in these types of games, and although some people might say that’s what makes the game exciting, to the majority, it’s frustrating. So what I propose is taking the luck out of the game and make it solely be based on skill. In the next few points I will tell you my ideas as to how this can be achieved.
>
> 1) LoadoutsMy first point is to allow players to start the game with two guns of their choice. If you played Halo 3 ODST you know that ODSTs can insert guns on the side of the pods so that when the pod lands, they can be easily unmounted. Now you might be thinking, “well can they pick any two guns from halo?”, and to this I say no. Only a selected few “starter” guns will be allowed to be chosen, such as a battle rifle, a magnum, plasma rifle, etc. By doing this, the game is more fair; If I land and I have the battle rifle and you, the enemy, have a magnum, it means that those are our best weapons from the bunch and so it makes the playing field more balanced and fair when the bullets start flying.
>
> 2) No Loot My second point is to get rid of loot all together. There will be no chests, no care-packages, no guns laying on the ground, etc. Instead I propose a point system, much like in Halo 5’s Warzone mode. Instead of allowing lucky noobs to find the best guns and loot, players will have to earn everything they have. How are these points earned? Simple, by playing the game. Each time a player gets a kill, completes an objective (more on this later), revives a teammate, or something else, the player will earns points. After a player earns points, he/she can then go to a designated terminal and spend their credits on weapons, ammo, healing materials, vehicles, etc. Obviously some stuff will cost more than others. But this does two things for the game, it adds a sense of reward for actually playing instead of hiding, and it adds risk to the game. Let’s say you have 2,000 points but the sniper rifle is 2,500 points. Do you risk getting a few more kills for the gun or instead spend the points now on some not-so-good guns but potentially win the next fight? This puts the choices in the player’s hands instead of RNG.
> One more thing, another annoying thing in Fortnite or Apex is picking up loot after getting a kill. Let’s say I’m looking for this specific gun and so I kill 15 people in the hopes that they have it, but all they stuff they have is worse than what I have. Then what? There’s no sense of reward for the various kills I got other than some exp when the game is done. So instead, when a player gets a kill, the player will be able to pickup the dead player’s credits. That way, if you kill those 15 people, you can then go spend all of those credits on something really good. But this also adds more risk, in the example about the sniper rifle in the last paragraph, knowing that if you die someone else gets your hard-earned credits can lead to a player having to double think not spending the credits. Furthermore, by allowing players to buy the guns they want, there’s none of this " I’m really good with the sniper rifle but I spent the whole game looking for one and didn’t find one" while someone else found one and kills you from far away. If you notice, most players will always go for the same guns during every match of a BR game. So why make them wander around looking for them while someone else has their best guns already? Just give the player the guns he/she wants and let the fight be a fierce and exciting one where they are both giving it their all.
>
> 3) RanksMy last point involves matchmaking. I have no clue why no other BR game has implemented this before. It’s EXTREMELY frustrating playing a game in which everyone plays like they’ve never played a game before in their lives, but then the next game you play against someone that’s 20 times as good as you and kills you without even trying. A ranking system adds more to the game. It’s not all about the “wins” you have, because in reality, wins tell you nothing. Sure maybe you won 30 games but in all of those you hid until the very end, while someone else only has 3 wins but they are extremely good but are always in a fight. A ranking system would make the game more fair and more fun. Bad players can feel the excitement of being in the top 5 and actually standing a chance, while a really good player can feel the excitement of playing with people as good as them. And I know you might be thinking, “well this would only split the player base and make games harder to find”, and I think you are right. So instead, have both a quick-match in which you get put into a game as quickly as possible with other people in quick-match, and a competitive mode in which you are ranked.
>
> If you have made it this far, thank you. I put a lot of thought into this and I would absolutely love a game like it. The truth is that halo needs to innovate to stay alive. A lot of the player base has left and there needs to be something new that brings them back. I hope even a few people read this and enjoyed it. Whether this will get anything going is unlikely, but I just wanted to speak my mind. I do have more ideas about the game such as the objectives, classes/abilities, etc. If you guys would like to hear about them I would be more than glad to share. But until then, thank you for your time.

Did youuuu… Steal my idea? O.o I already made a pretty similar gametype in H5 via forge with a req station as well as a respawn station for 3x the price of the REQ station :oo

> 2533274879757912;2:
> Me personally? I’m still not sold even if this is how it went down. For me, I just don’t enjoy the concept of being thrown into a landing zone with 49 other players to brawl it out and see how comes out on top.

I think it adds diversity in the gameplay. I have been playing Halo since I was very young, and playing multiplayer got dull for me after a while. Just being put into a map with 7 other people, 3 of which are teammates, to brawl it out and see which team comes out on top. Fundamentally they are the same thing, the difference being the length and objective of the game.
That was going to be another point of mine, I don’t think they number of players should be large. A smaller number of players means the need for more tactical decisions and less chances of bumping into someone every 10 seconds. In a game of Fortnite or Apex you will encounter at most 15 players, so why not just make the entire game have 25 players? This would mean smaller maps, and thus, a larger quantity and quality of maps. Maybe a map of New Mombasa, Reach, a halo, etc. There could even be a “story” in which you are being put in training simulations of previous ODST encounters to diversify you combat environment scenarios.

> 2533274860627685;1:
> Before you disregard my idea just because it’s a battle royale, please hear me out. Over the past couple of months I have been playing the various battle royale games such as Fortnite, Apex Legends, Blackout from black ops 4, etc. And to be completely honest, I enjoyed my time playing them. However, after thinking about why I stopped playing and asking people that hate the battle royale genre, I think I have found a way to make battle royale games fun. In the text below I will highlight some key concerns I have heard from people concerning battle royale games, and in which ways I propose they are fixed. The game I have in mind is an ODST battle royale game, I will explain how this will help fix the BR issues while still making sense. One last point, I do want this to be a conversation, so if you have suggestions or comments, don’t be afraid to leave them. Now, let us begin.
>
> GameplayProbably the biggest critique I see against BR games is the sense of luck involved. It can be extremely frustrating dropping somewhere and finding no guns for the next 5 minutes, meanwhile, some kid finds the best weapon in the game in a matter of seconds and kills you instantly. Luck is something BR games use a lot of, will you get a good gun at the beginning of the game? Will you find shields? Will a kid build a 30 feet high tower and camp there the entire game? Who knows! Nothing is certain in these types of games, and although some people might say that’s what makes the game exciting, to the majority, it’s frustrating. So what I propose is taking the luck out of the game and make it solely be based on skill. In the next few points I will tell you my ideas as to how this can be achieved.
>
> 1) LoadoutsMy first point is to allow players to start the game with two guns of their choice. If you played Halo 3 ODST you know that ODSTs can insert guns on the side of the pods so that when the pod lands, they can be easily unmounted. Now you might be thinking, “well can they pick any two guns from halo?”, and to this I say no. Only a selected few “starter” guns will be allowed to be chosen, such as a battle rifle, a magnum, plasma rifle, etc. By doing this, the game is more fair; If I land and I have the battle rifle and you, the enemy, have a magnum, it means that those are our best weapons from the bunch and so it makes the playing field more balanced and fair when the bullets start flying.
>
> 2) No Loot My second point is to get rid of loot all together. There will be no chests, no care-packages, no guns laying on the ground, etc. Instead I propose a point system, much like in Halo 5’s Warzone mode. Instead of allowing lucky noobs to find the best guns and loot, players will have to earn everything they have. How are these points earned? Simple, by playing the game. Each time a player gets a kill, completes an objective (more on this later), revives a teammate, or something else, the player will earns points. After a player earns points, he/she can then go to a designated terminal and spend their credits on weapons, ammo, healing materials, vehicles, etc. Obviously some stuff will cost more than others. But this does two things for the game, it adds a sense of reward for actually playing instead of hiding, and it adds risk to the game. Let’s say you have 2,000 points but the sniper rifle is 2,500 points. Do you risk getting a few more kills for the gun or instead spend the points now on some not-so-good guns but potentially win the next fight? This puts the choices in the player’s hands instead of RNG.
> One more thing, another annoying thing in Fortnite or Apex is picking up loot after getting a kill. Let’s say I’m looking for this specific gun and so I kill 15 people in the hopes that they have it, but all they stuff they have is worse than what I have. Then what? There’s no sense of reward for the various kills I got other than some exp when the game is done. So instead, when a player gets a kill, the player will be able to pickup the dead player’s credits. That way, if you kill those 15 people, you can then go spend all of those credits on something really good. But this also adds more risk, in the example about the sniper rifle in the last paragraph, knowing that if you die someone else gets your hard-earned credits can lead to a player having to double think not spending the credits. Furthermore, by allowing players to buy the guns they want, there’s none of this " I’m really good with the sniper rifle but I spent the whole game looking for one and didn’t find one" while someone else found one and kills you from far away. If you notice, most players will always go for the same guns during every match of a BR game. So why make them wander around looking for them while someone else has their best guns already? Just give the player the guns he/she wants and let the fight be a fierce and exciting one where they are both giving it their all.
>
> 3) RanksMy last point involves matchmaking. I have no clue why no other BR game has implemented this before. It’s EXTREMELY frustrating playing a game in which everyone plays like they’ve never played a game before in their lives, but then the next game you play against someone that’s 20 times as good as you and kills you without even trying. A ranking system adds more to the game. It’s not all about the “wins” you have, because in reality, wins tell you nothing. Sure maybe you won 30 games but in all of those you hid until the very end, while someone else only has 3 wins but they are extremely good but are always in a fight. A ranking system would make the game more fair and more fun. Bad players can feel the excitement of being in the top 5 and actually standing a chance, while a really good player can feel the excitement of playing with people as good as them. And I know you might be thinking, “well this would only split the player base and make games harder to find”, and I think you are right. So instead, have both a quick-match in which you get put into a game as quickly as possible with other people in quick-match, and a competitive mode in which you are ranked.
>
> If you have made it this far, thank you. I put a lot of thought into this and I would absolutely love a game like it. The truth is that halo needs to innovate to stay alive. A lot of the player base has left and there needs to be something new that brings them back. I hope even a few people read this and enjoyed it. Whether this will get anything going is unlikely, but I just wanted to speak my mind. I do have more ideas about the game such as the objectives, classes/abilities, etc. If you guys would like to hear about them I would be more than glad to share. But until then, thank you for your time.

They already said Infinite wont have battle royale mode and it does not need it

> 2533274856071306;3:
> > 2533274860627685;1:
> > Before you disregard my idea just because it’s a battle royale, please hear me out. Over the past couple of months I have been playing the various battle royale games such as Fortnite, Apex Legends, Blackout from black ops 4, etc. And to be completely honest, I enjoyed my time playing them. However, after thinking about why I stopped playing and asking people that hate the battle royale genre, I think I have found a way to make battle royale games fun. In the text below I will highlight some key concerns I have heard from people concerning battle royale games, and in which ways I propose they are fixed. The game I have in mind is an ODST battle royale game, I will explain how this will help fix the BR issues while still making sense. One last point, I do want this to be a conversation, so if you have suggestions or comments, don’t be afraid to leave them. Now, let us begin.
> >
> > GameplayProbably the biggest critique I see against BR games is the sense of luck involved. It can be extremely frustrating dropping somewhere and finding no guns for the next 5 minutes, meanwhile, some kid finds the best weapon in the game in a matter of seconds and kills you instantly. Luck is something BR games use a lot of, will you get a good gun at the beginning of the game? Will you find shields? Will a kid build a 30 feet high tower and camp there the entire game? Who knows! Nothing is certain in these types of games, and although some people might say that’s what makes the game exciting, to the majority, it’s frustrating. So what I propose is taking the luck out of the game and make it solely be based on skill. In the next few points I will tell you my ideas as to how this can be achieved.
> >
> > 1) LoadoutsMy first point is to allow players to start the game with two guns of their choice. If you played Halo 3 ODST you know that ODSTs can insert guns on the side of the pods so that when the pod lands, they can be easily unmounted. Now you might be thinking, “well can they pick any two guns from halo?”, and to this I say no. Only a selected few “starter” guns will be allowed to be chosen, such as a battle rifle, a magnum, plasma rifle, etc. By doing this, the game is more fair; If I land and I have the battle rifle and you, the enemy, have a magnum, it means that those are our best weapons from the bunch and so it makes the playing field more balanced and fair when the bullets start flying.
> >
> > 2) No Loot My second point is to get rid of loot all together. There will be no chests, no care-packages, no guns laying on the ground, etc. Instead I propose a point system, much like in Halo 5’s Warzone mode. Instead of allowing lucky noobs to find the best guns and loot, players will have to earn everything they have. How are these points earned? Simple, by playing the game. Each time a player gets a kill, completes an objective (more on this later), revives a teammate, or something else, the player will earns points. After a player earns points, he/she can then go to a designated terminal and spend their credits on weapons, ammo, healing materials, vehicles, etc. Obviously some stuff will cost more than others. But this does two things for the game, it adds a sense of reward for actually playing instead of hiding, and it adds risk to the game. Let’s say you have 2,000 points but the sniper rifle is 2,500 points. Do you risk getting a few more kills for the gun or instead spend the points now on some not-so-good guns but potentially win the next fight? This puts the choices in the player’s hands instead of RNG.
> > One more thing, another annoying thing in Fortnite or Apex is picking up loot after getting a kill. Let’s say I’m looking for this specific gun and so I kill 15 people in the hopes that they have it, but all they stuff they have is worse than what I have. Then what? There’s no sense of reward for the various kills I got other than some exp when the game is done. So instead, when a player gets a kill, the player will be able to pickup the dead player’s credits. That way, if you kill those 15 people, you can then go spend all of those credits on something really good. But this also adds more risk, in the example about the sniper rifle in the last paragraph, knowing that if you die someone else gets your hard-earned credits can lead to a player having to double think not spending the credits. Furthermore, by allowing players to buy the guns they want, there’s none of this " I’m really good with the sniper rifle but I spent the whole game looking for one and didn’t find one" while someone else found one and kills you from far away. If you notice, most players will always go for the same guns during every match of a BR game. So why make them wander around looking for them while someone else has their best guns already? Just give the player the guns he/she wants and let the fight be a fierce and exciting one where they are both giving it their all.
> >
> > 3) RanksMy last point involves matchmaking. I have no clue why no other BR game has implemented this before. It’s EXTREMELY frustrating playing a game in which everyone plays like they’ve never played a game before in their lives, but then the next game you play against someone that’s 20 times as good as you and kills you without even trying. A ranking system adds more to the game. It’s not all about the “wins” you have, because in reality, wins tell you nothing. Sure maybe you won 30 games but in all of those you hid until the very end, while someone else only has 3 wins but they are extremely good but are always in a fight. A ranking system would make the game more fair and more fun. Bad players can feel the excitement of being in the top 5 and actually standing a chance, while a really good player can feel the excitement of playing with people as good as them. And I know you might be thinking, “well this would only split the player base and make games harder to find”, and I think you are right. So instead, have both a quick-match in which you get put into a game as quickly as possible with other people in quick-match, and a competitive mode in which you are ranked.
> >
> > If you have made it this far, thank you. I put a lot of thought into this and I would absolutely love a game like it. The truth is that halo needs to innovate to stay alive. A lot of the player base has left and there needs to be something new that brings them back. I hope even a few people read this and enjoyed it. Whether this will get anything going is unlikely, but I just wanted to speak my mind. I do have more ideas about the game such as the objectives, classes/abilities, etc. If you guys would like to hear about them I would be more than glad to share. But until then, thank you for your time.
>
> Did youuuu… Steal my idea? O.o I already made a pretty similar gametype in H5 via forge with a req station as well as a respawn station for 3x the price of the REQ station :oo

Lol I promise you I did not. I stopped playing halo 5 not long after the release of it because I got a PC. That sounds really fun though! I think if they implement that into an actual BR game it’d be really fun. I have a few more ideas that could be added which would make it even more fun. I just wanted to get my basic ideas out of the way. I have a 2 hour commute to school and work every day so that’s when I started thinking about this idea.

> 2533274860627685;4:
> > 2533274879757912;2:
> > Me personally? I’m still not sold even if this is how it went down. For me, I just don’t enjoy the concept of being thrown into a landing zone with 49 other players to brawl it out and see how comes out on top.
>
> I think it adds diversity in the gameplay. I have been playing Halo since I was very young, and playing multiplayer got dull for me after a while. Just being put into a map with 7 other people, 3 of which are teammates, to brawl it out and see which team comes out on top. Fundamentally they are the same thing, the difference being the length and objective of the game.
> That was going to be another point of mine, I don’t think they number of players should be large. A smaller number of players means the need for more tactical decisions and less chances of bumping into someone every 10 seconds. In a game of Fortnite or Apex you will encounter at most 15 players, so why not just make the entire game have 25 players? This would mean smaller maps, and thus, a larger quantity and quality of maps. Maybe a map of New Mombasa, Reach, a halo, etc. There could even be a “story” in which you are being put in training simulations of previous ODST encounters to diversify you combat environment scenarios.

Not trying to be picky, stubborn, or that ‘I refuse to accept change’ person, but I still don’t care for it. Because it’s either a FFA style where it’s you against the world or it’s multi team, and I have always detested multi team. The obvious difference between BR and Halo is that normally in Halo you just keep fighting till you reach the objective goal (50 points if it’s just a Slayer) where as in BR games, it’s one life, that’s it. I hate being given only one chance, it’s why I largely stayed away from Infection.

> 2533274830166194;5:
> > 2533274860627685;1:
> > Big paragraph.txt
>
> They already said Infinite wont have battle royale mode and it does not need it

They actually said something like “Let’s not talk about that.”

RE@ super lobo grisI made a post here a while back, don’t get angry if this post gets locked too.

> I don’t like BR very much after fortnite, I was simply thinking up a cool way to switch it up. I’m currently making a mode like this in Forge for a 4 team Multi-Team gametype to run sorta like Extermination on a large map where Gun Stations will cost 5 points, Respawn Stations will be worth 15 points, all points earned by players will be shared with their team, and every kill is worth 2 points.Edit: It would pretty much run like a glorified Extermination gametype!

Now there’s even a Score limit. Like you could either not waste any points oooorrrr get a REQ weapon to get even more points :o

@Perserverance23

I believe they did want one but once people starting speaking out against it they went back on the idea of it. And I couldn’t disagree more, I think Halo needs it more than ever. Look at Halo in the past few years, both Halo 4 and 5 didn’t do too great, and 343 knows it, which is why they’re going back to the old Halo, taking longer on it, etc. Sure, you might be a loyal fan and enjoy the game as it is. But when looking at the bigger picture, Halo is not as big a name as it used to be. Halo needs to change, to adapt; and the reality of the situation is that BR is really big right now. Sure, there might be an oversaturation of BR games right now, but that’s why I’m saying it needs to be different. From a business perspective, there’s a lot of money and popularity to be made from BR games, just look at Fortnite and Apex. Sure a lot of people, I’m guessing you might be one of them, dislike the genre, but that doesn’t stop the game from making millions. Halo cannot stay as it is and survive. Maybe this BR doesn’t even have to be as part of Halo Infinite, maybe it can be a side game like Halo Spartan Strike, just a side project.

> 2533274860627685;9:
> @Perserverance23

yo, use a User Link. Iits that spartanguy at the top of the editText box with all the other fancy things like bold and italics

> 2533274860627685;9:
> I believe they did want one but once people starting speaking out against it they went back on the idea of it. And I couldn’t disagree more, I think Halo needs it more than ever. Look at Halo in the past few years, both Halo 4 and 5 didn’t do too great, and 343 knows it, which is why they’re going back to the old Halo, taking longer on it, etc. Sure, you might be a loyal fan and enjoy the game as it is. But when looking at the bigger picture, Halo is not as big a name as it used to be. Halo needs to change, to adapt

They’re already adapting with the PC release through Steam ;o

> 2533274879757912;7:
> > 2533274860627685;4:
> > > 2533274879757912;2:
> > > Me personally? I’m still not sold even if this is how it went down. For me, I just don’t enjoy the concept of being thrown into a landing zone with 49 other players to brawl it out and see how comes out on top.
> >
> > I think it adds diversity in the gameplay. I have been playing Halo since I was very young, and playing multiplayer got dull for me after a while. Just being put into a map with 7 other people, 3 of which are teammates, to brawl it out and see which team comes out on top. Fundamentally they are the same thing, the difference being the length and objective of the game.
> > That was going to be another point of mine, I don’t think they number of players should be large. A smaller number of players means the need for more tactical decisions and less chances of bumping into someone every 10 seconds. In a game of Fortnite or Apex you will encounter at most 15 players, so why not just make the entire game have 25 players? This would mean smaller maps, and thus, a larger quantity and quality of maps. Maybe a map of New Mombasa, Reach, a halo, etc. There could even be a “story” in which you are being put in training simulations of previous ODST encounters to diversify you combat environment scenarios.
>
> Not trying to be picky, stubborn, or that ‘I refuse to accept change’ person, but I still don’t care for it. Because it’s either a FFA style where it’s you against the world or it’s multi team, and I have always detested multi team. The obvious difference between BR and Halo is that normally in Halo you just keep fighting till you reach the objective goal (50 points if it’s just a Slayer) where as in BR games, it’s one life, that’s it. I hate being given only one chance, it’s why I largely stayed away from Infection.

I don’t think you’re being any of those things, there’s a lot of people that have the same sentiment as you and I’m glad to be getting your perspective. I do agree with the frustration of only having one life. I tend to stay away from games like Rainbow Six Siege because I hate only having one chance. But, after playing BR games, I personally don’t get that feeling. Sure, if you land in a popular spot where everyone goes then yeah sure you might end up dying really fast and it gets frustrating. But in the game I’m suggesting there’s no need to land in a populated place unless you want kills. There’s no “rush” for loot or any of these things so people won’t be as quick to jump in and die. In a game of infection, the average time you stayed alive was sometimes extremely low, 30 seconds I think was the fastest I ever died. But, in this game I’m suggesting it doesn’t have to be like that. I’m not trying to convince you, I’m just explaining my own experience with the genre

> 2533274856071306;8:
> > 2533274830166194;5:
> > > 2533274860627685;1:
> > > Big paragraph.txt
> >
> > They already said Infinite wont have battle royale mode and it does not need it
>
> They actually said something like “Let’s not talk about that.”
>
> RE@ super lobo grisI made a post here a while back, don’t get angry if this post gets locked too.
>
>
> > I don’t like BR very much after fortnite, I was simply thinking up a cool way to switch it up. I’m currently making a mode like this in Forge for a 4 team Multi-Team gametype to run sorta like Extermination on a large map where Gun Stations will cost 5 points, Respawn Stations will be worth 15 points, all points earned by players will be shared with their team, and every kill is worth 2 points.Edit: It would pretty much run like a glorified Extermination gametype!
>
> Now there’s even a Score limit. Like you could either not waste any points oooorrrr get a REQ weapon to get even more points :o

That sounds awesome! I will for sure look it up and try it out. But now imagine this with more detail, better UI, better maps, etc! It could be so much fun

> 2533274856071306;10:
> > 2533274860627685;9:
> > @Perserverance23
>
> yo, use a User Link. Iits that spartanguy at the top of the editText box with all the other fancy things like bold and italics
>
>
> > 2533274860627685;9:
> > I believe they did want one but once people starting speaking out against it they went back on the idea of it. And I couldn’t disagree more, I think Halo needs it more than ever. Look at Halo in the past few years, both Halo 4 and 5 didn’t do too great, and 343 knows it, which is why they’re going back to the old Halo, taking longer on it, etc. Sure, you might be a loyal fan and enjoy the game as it is. But when looking at the bigger picture, Halo is not as big a name as it used to be. Halo needs to change, to adapt
>
> They’re already adapting with the PC release through Steam ;o

Oh okay, thanks! Sorry, I don’t use forums that much so I’m still learning.

I agree the release on steam is a step in the right direction, but it won’t be enough. The problem is not the amount of players they reach, it’s how they are able to keep them. It’s very exciting for me to finally be able to play MCC on PC, but would you really call it adaption? The vast majority of games now come out on Xbox, PS, and Steam, it only took Halo MCC 5 years to make it to PC. Halo needs something that excites players to come back to Halo and stay. A lot of players will only come back for the story, stay a bit for multiplayer, get bored of the same formula, and then move to another game.

> 2533274860627685;9:
> @Perserverance23
>
> I believe they did want one but once people starting speaking out against it they went back on the idea of it. And I couldn’t disagree more, I think Halo needs it more than ever. Look at Halo in the past few years, both Halo 4 and 5 didn’t do too great, and 343 knows it, which is why they’re going back to the old Halo, taking longer on it, etc. Sure, you might be a loyal fan and enjoy the game as it is. But when looking at the bigger picture, Halo is not as big a name as it used to be. Halo needs to change, to adapt; and the reality of the situation is that BR is really big right now. Sure, there might be an oversaturation of BR games right now, but that’s why I’m saying it needs to be different. From a business perspective, there’s a lot of money and popularity to be made from BR games, just look at Fortnite and Apex. Sure a lot of people, I’m guessing you might be one of them, dislike the genre, but that doesn’t stop the game from making millions. Halo cannot stay as it is and survive. Maybe this BR doesn’t even have to be as part of Halo Infinite, maybe it can be a side game like Halo Spartan Strike, just a side project.

Halo has been copying trends the past 2 games and it keeps losing population.

> 2533274830166194;14:
> > 2533274860627685;9:
> > @Perserverance23
> >
> > I believe they did want one but once people starting speaking out against it they went back on the idea of it. And I couldn’t disagree more, I think Halo needs it more than ever. Look at Halo in the past few years, both Halo 4 and 5 didn’t do too great, and 343 knows it, which is why they’re going back to the old Halo, taking longer on it, etc. Sure, you might be a loyal fan and enjoy the game as it is. But when looking at the bigger picture, Halo is not as big a name as it used to be. Halo needs to change, to adapt; and the reality of the situation is that BR is really big right now. Sure, there might be an oversaturation of BR games right now, but that’s why I’m saying it needs to be different. From a business perspective, there’s a lot of money and popularity to be made from BR games, just look at Fortnite and Apex. Sure a lot of people, I’m guessing you might be one of them, dislike the genre, but that doesn’t stop the game from making millions. Halo cannot stay as it is and survive. Maybe this BR doesn’t even have to be as part of Halo Infinite, maybe it can be a side game like Halo Spartan Strike, just a side project.
>
> Halo has been copying trends the past 2 games and it keeps losing population.

Why are they “copying” trends though? 343 knows that they need to innovate to stay alive. If Halo 6 were to come out and it was halo 3 but with better graphics people would say “Wow, nothing new, just a re-skin of halo 3” but if they innovate people say “they should have kept the same formula from before, they had it right in halo 3”. It’s the exact same problem COD has, where if they try to innovate and add boostpacks people say they liked it better when they didn’t have it, but when they take it away people say that it’s the same exact game as the previous CODs. So it’s the -Yoink!- if they do, -Yoink!- if they don’t situation. To be honest, I don’t think people believe halo 3 or halo 2 were as great as people make it out to be. They just tend to remember how much easier life was, get a sense of nostalgia, and so say that halo 2 and 3 were way better. I think gameplay-wise, halo 5 was really good. The multiplayer was pretty solid, but it lost people due to the controversial campaign, and lack of variety. You can tell me that “they had it right in halo 3” all day long, but when it comes down to it, playing halo 3 gets boring after a while. That’s why I’m not saying to scrap everything that halo has ever done and just go for BR, I’m saying to add new things. Halo itself is a good game, but if they’re going to move forward, they need to adapt.

> 2533274860627685;15:
> > 2533274830166194;14:
> > > 2533274860627685;9:
> > > @Perserverance23
> > >
> > > I believe they did want one but once people starting speaking out against it they went back on the idea of it. And I couldn’t disagree more, I think Halo needs it more than ever. Look at Halo in the past few years, both Halo 4 and 5 didn’t do too great, and 343 knows it, which is why they’re going back to the old Halo, taking longer on it, etc. Sure, you might be a loyal fan and enjoy the game as it is. But when looking at the bigger picture, Halo is not as big a name as it used to be. Halo needs to change, to adapt; and the reality of the situation is that BR is really big right now. Sure, there might be an oversaturation of BR games right now, but that’s why I’m saying it needs to be different. From a business perspective, there’s a lot of money and popularity to be made from BR games, just look at Fortnite and Apex. Sure a lot of people, I’m guessing you might be one of them, dislike the genre, but that doesn’t stop the game from making millions. Halo cannot stay as it is and survive. Maybe this BR doesn’t even have to be as part of Halo Infinite, maybe it can be a side game like Halo Spartan Strike, just a side project.
> >
> > Halo has been copying trends the past 2 games and it keeps losing population.
>
> Why are they “copying” trends though? 343 knows that they need to innovate to stay alive. If Halo 6 were to come out and it was halo 3 but with better graphics people would say “Wow, nothing new, just a re-skin of halo 3” but if they innovate people say “they should have kept the same formula from before, they had it right in halo 3”. It’s the exact same problem COD has, where if they try to innovate and add boostpacks people say they liked it better when they didn’t have it, but when they take it away people say that it’s the same exact game as the previous CODs. So it’s the -Yoink!- if they do, -Yoink!- if they don’t situation. To be honest, I don’t think people believe halo 3 or halo 2 were as great as people make it out to be. They just tend to remember how much easier life was, get a sense of nostalgia, and so say that halo 2 and 3 were way better. I think gameplay-wise, halo 5 was really good. The multiplayer was pretty solid, but it lost people due to the controversial campaign, and lack of variety. You can tell me that “they had it right in halo 3” all day long, but when it comes down to it, playing halo 3 gets boring after a while. That’s why I’m not saying to scrap everything that halo has ever done and just go for BR, I’m saying to add new things. Halo itself is a good game, but if they’re going to move forward, they need to adapt.

I’m confused on what players such as yourself dont get,this so called “adapting” isnt innovation its imitation and it has driven a huge portion of the fanbase away dating back to halo reach.If you played halo 3 at its release till halo reach’s release you usually had a blast because that game pace was the normal at the time.And then you add enhanced mechanics starting with reach and halo 4 and it starts feeling like call of duty which then drives people away.Population numbers back me up unfortunately

No BR in mainline Halo games. If they want to make some standalone spin-off title than fine. It doesn’t matter what form it takes, trying to stuff BR, any kind of BR, into Infinite is going to cost time and resources 343 doesn’t have.

343 has consistently struggled to put out polished, feature complete Halo games. We already saw the same thing happen with Warzone in Halo 5. We got the shiny new marketable gamemode at the cost of Forge at launch, no dev BTB, several missing gametypes and other features. You can argue different teams were working on different things, but at the end of the day they felt microtransactions mode was more important to get out at launch than staples like Forge…

Again, if some other studio wants to make a standalone Halo themed BR game than be my guest, but BR needs to stay far away from core Halo titles regardless of how “different” it may or may not be.

I just want to sound off with a resounding “NO” to battle royale in Halo, in case any of the devs are tracking the interest in this. IMO, BR and Halo need to stay far, far away from each other. Give it another dev as a spin-off title but NOT in a mainline Halo release. It will drain resources that could go to better Halo “things”.

Innovation, not imitation. Plus the market for that… stuff is becoming saturated.

The term BR only really took off with Fortnite, the title destroyed by the genre’s rep.

When you think of BR you must be thinking of dropping into a fort building sim yeh? Not a traditional FFA or even the oldest Royale of Minecraft Hunger Games. (xD)
I’m sure the OP doesn’t want a mode called ‘Battle Royale’ and can’t think of a better name at the time, plus they’ve gone into more detail than “Halo needs BR to stay relevant”

If it’s going to be in the game, it needs to be an one-off gamemode, not a full fledged thing like Fortnite became. It needs to stay in its own self created genre and not copy modern trends.

Look I can’t say something that won’t trigger at least one or two people, but take some time to not think about your horrible times in a BR. (I only played two awful games of Fortnite and realized how badly it needed a ranking system, and uninstalled it. I think BR is overpopulated and needs a new spinoff gamemode to step in.)

> 2533274856071306;19:
> The term BR only really took off with Fortnite, the title destroyed by the genre’s rep.
>
> When you think of BR you must be thinking of dropping into a fort building sim yeh? Not a traditional FFA or even the oldest Royale of Minecraft Hunger Games. *(xD)*I’m sure the OP doesn’t want a mode called ‘Battle Royale’ and can’t think of a better name at the time, plus they’ve gone into more detail than “Halo needs BR to stay relevant”
>
> If it’s going to be in the game, it needs to be an one-off gamemode, not a full fledged thing like Fortnite became. It needs to stay in its own self created genre and not copy modern trends.
>
> Look I can’t say something that won’t trigger at least one or two people, but take some time to not think about your horrible times in a BR. (I only played two awful games of Fortnite and realized how badly it needed a ranking system, and uninstalled it. I think BR is overpopulated and needs a new spinoff gamemode to step in.)

It’s just not necessary,why pay to pay a halo royale mode when you can play fortnite and apex legends for free