It was more focused and balanced. Warzone just feels too random and aimless; It’s just spawn, fling yourself at a building, die, spawn with a fancy gun, fling yourself at a bullet sponge boss, die, repeat. It has no real flow or teamwork element.
The more specific objectives in Invasion required coordination and skill from both teams in order to come out on top in each phase, and loadouts unlocked at the same interval for both teams.
Spartans vs. Elites. Warzone is pretty bland in concept by comparison; AI is a nice idea but doesn’t really add anything but balance issues the way they’ve implemented bosses.
Invasion was Halo’s first asymmetrical mode, capitalizing on the differences between the two factions and the weapons they’ve used throughout the franchise. Elite players could assert their dominance through brutal assassinations or Spartans could take vengeance on the dinos once and for all.
No microtransactions. This feeds into the randomness of Warzone, it’s not really necessary. It could be worse (straight-up Pay-2-Win), but it’s still annoying.
Invasion, although asymmetrical, still maintained Halo-style balancing factors like on-map power weapons and vehicles, Attack/Defense cycling (unlike WZ Assault), etc.
It was Forge-able. Being made off of Halo’s classic modes (Assault, Territories, CTF) allowed Invasion to be implemented into custom games. So although it shipped with even less maps than WZ, Forgers were able to make their own epic maps once they figured it out.
These varied objectives also allowed for different scenarios to keep the mode fresh and interesting, as WZ can become redundant very quickly.
EDIT: Warzone adds some nice things though; I kind of enjoy the pre and post-match cutscenes, but they all entail the same scenario. Invasion had a few cinematic elements like the Pelicans and Phantoms (and an air strike on Boneyard), but it lacked the flair Halo 5 brings. WZ’s cutscenes mixed with Reach’s variety would have been perfect.
I also think AI is a cool idea; My favorite part of every WZ game is the 12-player cooperative kill rush set to epic music at the beginning. Imagine charging in as an Elite with a personal squad of AI Grunts/Jackals, or holding out as a Spartan with a squad of Marines/ODSTs in Invasion.
> 2533274832335336;1:
> 1) It was more focused and balanced. Warzone just feels too random and aimless; It’s just spawn, fling yourself at a building, die, spawn with a fancy gun, fling yourself at a bullet sponge boss, die, repeat. It has no real flow or teamwork element.
>
> The more specific objectives in Invasion required coordination and skill from both teams in order to come out on top in each phase, and loadouts unlocked at the same interval for both teams.
>
> 2) Spartans vs. Elites. Warzone is pretty bland in concept by comparison; AI is a nice idea but doesn’t really add anything but balance issues the way they’ve implemented bosses.
>
> Invasion was Halo’s first asymmetrical mode, capitalizing on the differences between the two factions and the weapons they’ve used throughout the franchise. Elite players could assert their dominance through brutal assassinations or Spartans could take vengeance on the dinos once and for all.
>
> 3) No microtransactions. This feeds into the randomness of Warzone, it’s not really necessary. It could be worse (straight-up Pay-2-Win), but it’s still annoying.
>
> 4) It was Forge-able. Being made off of Halo’s classic modes (Assault, Territories, CTF) allowed Invasion to be implem
> 2533274845793391;2:
> > 2533274832335336;1:
> > 1) It was more focused and balanced. Warzone just feels too random and aimless; It’s just spawn, fling yourself at a building, die, spawn with a fancy gun, fling yourself at a bullet sponge boss, die, repeat. It has no real flow or teamwork element.
> >
> > The more specific objectives in Invasion required coordination and skill from both teams in order to come out on top in each phase, and loadouts unlocked at the same interval for both teams.
> >
> > 2) Spartans vs. Elites. Warzone is pretty bland in concept by comparison; AI is a nice idea but doesn’t really add anything but balance issues the way they’ve implemented bosses.
> >
> > Invasion was Halo’s first asymmetrical mode, capitalizing on the differences between the two factions and the weapons they’ve used throughout the franchise. Elite players could assert their dominance through brutal assassinations or Spartans could take vengeance on the dinos once and for all.
> >
> > 3) No microtransactions. This feeds into the randomness of Warzone, it’s not really necessary. It could be worse (straight-up Pay-2-Win), but it’s still annoying.
> >
> > 4) It was Forge-able. Being made off of Halo’s classic modes (Assault, Territories, CTF) allowed Invasion to be implem
>
>
> sooo… it is your opinion
Invasion has the same problem as Warzone, the lack of teamwork. Invasion is way more frustrating when the players have bad teamwork. Recall that players have to invade a base, and if the players quit prematurely, it make progress near impossible and unfun. Warzone is different because it has JIP, and instant victory. I rather lose in an instant than wait 10 minutes for the round to end.
I don’t understand that Warzone is aimless? I don’t know what you mean by that. I think it’s pretty straightforward. You should note that REQs makes Warzone worthwhile, and it gets better over time because we can get more unlocks. It’s cool.
Your liking of invasion is valid, but your points don’t necessarily make warzone an inferior game mode. I’m sure there are plenty of people who don’t really care about the spartans vs elites for example. I like the theme of spartan training in the halo 5 multiplayer.
> 2533274887410089;5:
> Invasion has the same problem as Warzone, the lack of teamwork. Invasion is way more frustrating when the players have bad teamwork. Recall that players have to invade a base, and if the players quit prematurely, it make progress near impossible and unfun. Warzone is different because it has JIP, and instant victory. I rather lose in an instant than wait 10 minutes for the round to end.
>
> I don’t understand that Warzone is aimless? I don’t know what you mean by that. I think it’s pretty straightforward. You should note that REQs makes Warzone worthwhile, and it gets better over time because we can get more unlocks. It’s cool.
I agree Invasion definitely could have used JIP or a slightly higher player count so 1-2 quitting allies didn’t spell immediate defeat. That said, it was pretty rare for that to happen (for me at least).
What I mean is that Invasion’s smaller player cap and more team-oriented objectives forced more cooperative gameplay for a win; protect your team, cover your bomb/core carrier, stay available for your squadmate, etc.
Warzone is a lot more “lone wolf/IDGAF” in nature.
> 2535409816624774;6:
> Your liking of invasion is valid, but your points don’t necessarily make warzone an inferior game mode. I’m sure there are plenty of people who don’t really care about the spartans vs elites for example. I like the theme of spartan training in the halo 5 multiplayer.
Maybe not, but you can’t deny Invasion was a more straightforward and teamplay-oriented mode. And again, it was customizable, so you didn’t have to play on the same two maps and wait an eternity for the devs to release a new one (unless you were in matchmaking unfortunately. Community maps came way too late for INV). And with that customizability came more varied scenarios than Warzone offers.
Invasion was incredible. How drastic each phase changed was amazing, especially on Spire. The last stage of everyone trying to get on top of the Spire was so fun and tense. Warzone barely has any tense moments besides running out of time or the Warden. Assault adds a bit more tension since it’s focussed around the core but Invasion is simply unmatched.
I will definitely be playing a ton of Reach once it becomes compatible later this month, hope to see a pleasant rise in population
I agree with the people who said that Invasion was unplayable without team work. The only point of Invasion was to win, and if you didn’t have the team work then winning was impossible. Warzone, on the other hand, still has objectives and a score and the ability to be won or lost, but to my way of thinking none of that matters. Warzone is whatever you want it to be. That kind of flexibility makes it vastly superior, in my opinion, to any previous Halo game type, not just Invasion.
> 2533274873843883;10:
> I agree with the people who said that Invasion was unplayable without team work. The only point of Invasion was to win, and if you didn’t have the team work then winning was impossible. Warzone, on the other hand, still has objectives and a score and the ability to be won or lost, but to my way of thinking none of that matters. Warzone is whatever you want it to be. That kind of flexibility makes it vastly superior, in my opinion, to any previous Halo game type, not just Invasion.
Yup, I understand WZ is basically absolute freedom with the Halo sandbox, which seems like fantastic idea but it feels empty as a whole IMO.
Whats the point of AI if they’re only important when a Legendary pops up? Why cap bases other than for spawning and core defenses? What’s the point of all these teammates if you can’t really coordinate with them?
I’d like WZ a whole lot more if they’d kept it more like Dominion, where capping bases and keeping them was important for victory…but that’s another thing and I’m going off-topic.
Look, I LOVE Invasion. I really do… but Warzone is much more focused and practical as a team mode, aside from the typical REQ spamming BS every now and then, and before launch I never would have said something like that. I still don’t really like how they just hand the winning team better weapons and vehicles throughout the match in Warzone, but I guess you need to actually be a better team to gain the lead in the first place…
Invasion was good but didn’t incentivize teamwork much at all (the map designs and limited objectives kinda forced this) you were eventually locked into a giant, randomized shootout because literally everyone in the map was funneled into one spot, and because everyone needs to do the same thing at the same time. It made for cool light shows, but not much in the way of organized tactics.
In Warzone there’s extra variables that can stop you from winning the match if you don’t communicate: You hold 2 bases the entire match and don’t kill any major bosses? You lose. You don’t grab some teammates and push for armories/minor bosses throughout the match? You lose. You do all the former but don’t hold any bases? Enemy team will push you back to home base spawn and attack your core.
I will say though… Invasion was a tad better for immersion. I just can’t get over the bright red and blue Marines/Spartans everywhere sometimes, lol… It also really set the tone nicely with the intense music interludes and Covenant-only weapons for Elites at spawn. Come to think of it, the access to better weapons as the match went on was a lot like the REQ levels system…
> 2535460843083983;12:
> Look, I LOVE Invasion. I really do… but Warzone is much more focused and practical as a team mode, aside from the typical REQ spamming BS every now and then, and before launch I never would have said something like that. I still don’t really like how they just hand the winning better weapons and vehicles throughout the match, but I guess you need to actually be a better team to gain the lead in the first place…
>
> Invasion was good but didn’t incentivize teamwork much at all (the map designs and limited objectives kinda forced this) your were eventually locked into a giant, randomized shootout because literally everyone in the map was funneled into one spot, and because everyone needs to do the same thing at the same time, which made for cool light shows, but not much in the way of organized tactics.
>
> In Warzone there’s extra variables that can stop you from winning the match if you don’t communicate: You hold 2 bases the entire match and don’t kill any major bosses? You lose. You don’t grab some teammates and push for armories/minor bosses throughout the match? You lose. You do all the former but don’t hold any bases? Enemy team will push you back to home base spawn and attack your core.
>
> I will say though… Invasion was a tad better for immersion. I just can’t get over the bright red and blue Marines/Spartans everywhere sometimes, lol… It also really set the tone nicely with the intense music interludes and Covenant-only weapons for Elites at spawn. Come to think of it, the access to better weapons as the match went on was a lot like the REQ levels system…
Warzone has like 4 major teamwork moments per game; The initial co-op rush I mentioned, taking the “middle base”, and the Legendaries near the middle and end of each match. The rest is just every player on both teams running around like headless chickens and wandering aimlessly waiting for something big to spawn for a point boost.
Yeah, you can lose if you don’t cap bases but your team would have to be EXTREMELY terrible for that to happen. People ignore base-capping or mini bosses entirely sometimes, as the only thing that feels intrinsic to victory is Middle Base and Legendary kills, which are unmoving, overpowered bullet sponges that whoever puts the last bullet into gets. Its all just so random and it’s infuriating to lose because of crap like that.
> 2645194602574029;16:
> > 2533274796819040;13:
> > Id take invasion over warzone any day of the week
>
>
> ^this.
>
> I miss invasion, please bring it back for us 343!