Idea for Warzone! Other topics, good read.

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

So I just got done with a brutal two hours of Warzone and Assault, and rest assured, my fear that farming only happened at night was shattered. After basically having to hide in my spawn for three consecutive Assault matches on Apex, I decided to switch over and try out Arena. A few games of SWAT helped the rage, then I jumped into a couple of Social Multi-teams and a light bulb went off.

What if there was three set of Spartan squads in Warzone? I’m not talking about A.I. or level bosses, I mean a Red vs Blue vs White (USA!, or what have you for the third color). I give three reasons why this can affect the current state of this nasty issue that doesn’t exist:

  1. Winning team can’t just focus on smacking losing team by pinning them in their base because there is a third squad to worry about. Rarely does it matter when any number of the later level bosses come out for losing or winning team; ones getting farmed, one is farming. It doesn’t force, but provides a much more reasonable incentive to go after the core, you can’t fight on two fronts, simple military knowledge.

  2. It’d make Warzone less monotone, and by this, I mean instead of having three points via domination style, allow three teams to control their own base. If one team is successful in taking over all three bases, then the two other teams cores are exposed. This could get really interesting, cause now you have to factor in a number of different objectives: Risk your own core and go after the other teams core, defend your core and hope the other team isn’t as lucky, or work with the opposition to take a base away from the winning team. The enemy of my enemy is my friend no?

– If you want to get really technical, if the winning team can’t hold/recover the base, and neither losing team can successfully take it over for their own team, it will go neutral and have to be recaptured by any of the teams, core defenses go back up for losing team.

  1. Warzone Assault is busted, there’s no way around it. If 343i doesn’t provide multiple spawn locations for certain maps then its just a slaughter from a distance. I’m not a game design expert but this sounds much more fun then having to deal with annoying spawn traps, more competition, three just feels so much better. The current roster I believe allows for 24 players, that’d give you 8 shooters on each squad. That’s now an additional 4 people (count it as non-teammates).

My other topic of discussion is how demoralizing it is to have 4 kills and 26 assist and 13 deaths. I understand this is a team game and you shouldn’t whine about not getting crazy K/D ratios, and I don’t consider myself Pingy or any kind of pro, but it takes a damn good amount of time and patience to aim and hit your mark. I am sick and tired of the one needler, literally, ONE NEEDLE, nabbing my furious trigger mashing kill. There needs to be Assist Counts as Kill or every two assists equals one kill. Its DOWN RIGHT DEMORALIZING and DEPRESSING for people who practice, and want to get better at this game to be constantly set up for more frustration in a game that doesn’t really do new or returning fans any favors. I believe this is one update or addition that is long over due.

Okay, I vented. I do think my Warzone idea is good.

2

Yes, to all the things you just said.

3

Here’s the counterpoint:

With a three team WZ, the game motivation will change from winning, to preventing another team from winning.

This means that, if one team puts in the effort, organizes, spends REQs, and goes in to win it, it will be nearly futile because the other two teams will work together to stop the team with the highest points.

I run 12 man WZ teams every time I’m on. I’ve built a specific friends list, and they join me to play warzone and win, and that’s exactly what we do. But what’s the point if we’re effectively (from our perspective) going to go up against a team with double our numbers?

It’s nice that the 3-team version would tend to equalize the score throughout the game, and almost always ensure a close endgame, but it does it at the cost of skill, REQs, practice, and strategy. The four things that make warzone fun and winnable will be eliminated in exchange for something that doesn’t even come close to resembling a fair game.

It’s just trading one devil for another (one form of “unfairness” for another). But also eliminates skill. I imagine that the outcome of every game would be decided by whoever gets the last shot on that last boss, every time. So I wouldn’t play it.

4

When a core is destroyed, is the game over? And the winning team decided by points alone? How does it work

5

Losing 900-900-100

“You can still destroy both enemy cores”

6

just no it wouldn’t work

7

> 2533274803493024;5:
> Losing 900-900-100
>
> “You can still destroy both enemy cores”

I will literally get up and throw my controller at the TV

8

warzone firefight should have an offline option

9

They should put teams against teams, i run with a team of 12 and only once so far did we play against another group of 12, that was the best game i ever had in warzone!!!

10

We do want the original. Don;t try to fix what isn’t broke. 343 wake up and smell the coffee or you’ll lose a lot of old school gamers. this will in tern lose you revenue for any future Halo franchise game. Personally, if you mess of firefight the you will not be getting sales from me or the rest of my gamer buddies clans on the next Halo game. Most of us are die hard old school firefighters. It looks as though you’re making firefight just to make more money. It’s sad what you have become. Don;t say they gave us free maps either. That was a well deserved apology for the screwed up M.C.C… It still doesn’t work right years later. sad very sad. Last chance to make things right 343. Make it right or lose hundreds possibly thousands of gamers because of greed. The choice is supposed to be ours or did you forget that with all the money falling in your lap?