Ordnance progress carryover

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I dislike how there are times in halo 4 where ordnance points go to waste because you earn them when you already have an ordnance ready.

There are many situations where I want to strategically not use the ordnance until later, such as when I see a SAW as an option but already have a SAW on me so I can immediately call in another one after I die, or an overshield I am saving for when there are lots of enemies pressing me. However it is a double edge sword because now any points I earn until that time are a waste.

Here is what I propose for halo XB1; make ordnance progress carryover, even if you have one ready and don’t use it right away. Players shouldn’t be torn between, “Well, should I suboptimally use this ordnance right away, or wait for a better moment but sacrifice progress on my next one.”

So yes what do you think, ordnance progress carryover in XB1?

2

343 didn’t include stacking because of balance issues, they said it themselves before halo 4 was released, at e3 I believe. I find it hilarious that you want to be able to stack power weapons. You seriously want the game to play itself for you don’t you?

3

> 343 didn’t include stacking because of balance issues, they said it themselves before halo 4 was released, at e3 I believe. I find it hilarious that you want to be able to stack power weapons. You seriously want the game to play itself for you don’t you?

Oh I uh no I just want a more fair and balanced ordnance system that’s all. As I mentioned players shouldn’t need to forfeit ordnance points for tactically hanging on to an ordnance. Also, sometimes a player may forget to use his ordnance or whatnot, the game should be lenient in such a situation. So how would stacking be imbalanced exactly?

4

Assuming that ordnance returns in future Halo games, which I hope it doesn’t, and assuming that it will work like it does in Halo 4, then I still must say I disagree with your suggestion.

If you postpone the use of your ordnance, then that’s a tactical decision you’re making. You’re taking a risk that may or may not pay off. Do you use your SAW now, and risk not using it to its full potential? Or do you wait, and risk not getting another ordnance, but use your SAW when it is more appropriate? If you could just wait to use your SAW while stacking up your next ordnance weapon, then there’s no risk vs reward aspect. You can later call down two power weapons at once and just destroy without any consequence. That’s not balanced in the least bit.

Halo has always been about smart play, and while Halo 4 has done a lot to destroy that aspect of the game, your suggestion would cause it even more harm. If a new player forgets to use his ordnance, then he has to suffer the consequences of that action. The game should not be super lenient, and the new player will learn from his mistakes. If the game is too lenient, there is no challenge. If there is no challenge, there is no enjoyment, even to social/casual gamers like me.

5

The endgame would almost literally be nothing but super-charged Spartans loaded down with power weapons. That doesn’t sound very fun for regular Slayer.

6

> > 343 didn’t include stacking because of balance issues, they said it themselves before halo 4 was released, at e3 I believe. I find it hilarious that you want to be able to stack power weapons. You seriously want the game to play itself for you don’t you?
>
> Oh I uh no I just want a more fair and balanced ordnance system that’s all. As I mentioned players shouldn’t need to forfeit ordnance points for tactically hanging on to an ordnance. Also, sometimes a player may forget to use his ordnance or whatnot, the game should be lenient in such a situation. So how would stacking be imbalanced exactly?

If I were to explain the simple nature of the imbalance to you, I would be met with just another nonsensical argument that would have nothing to do with balance, so I I’m not going to waste my time.

7

Why do you not only continue to blindly support broken mechanics, but also suggest to make them even worse? I could come up with a list of everything broken with ordnance, but it already has been told to you countless times, only to be ignored.

8

The fact that you want the game to compensate for you forgetting to drop your ordinance is a clear indication that you want ease of difficulty and skill, rather than challenge and striving to become better.

You forget that is on you.

9

This would be horribly unbalanced. If you want a new ordnance you should have to use your current ordnance.

10

I only agree with this for one game mode and that’s be my own improved Firefight, not MP, which should have no personal ordnance if it were to include power weapons.

For firefight, this would be good in a sense that you pay the stacks you’ve earned for different things, ammo refill for loadout weapons, 1 ordnance point. Scorpion Tank, 5 points. With each stack the required score increase with one, but the score requirement is always the same for each tier. First point would for example always be 100 points, second would always be 150 and so forth. So after having gathered 3 points and used them, to get the first point you only need to get 100 points.

For multiplayer I can only see this “stacking” thing work if personal ordnance doesn’t include any power ups or power weapons at all, only grenades, primary and secondary ammo refills, or weapon replacements with plasma weapons.

I don’t want someone with a SAW, Damage boost and Speed boost or overshield at the same time from their own ordnance.

Forgetting to use your ordnance and the games should be more lenient about it, why should it? If you actually manage to forget to use your ordnance, that’s announced to you and comes down as a selection tab just below your shields obstructing your view with three blinking choices of what to get, then I don’t think that the game should be lenient about anything.

11

> The fact that you want the game to compensate for you forgetting to drop your ordinance is a clear indication that you want ease of difficulty and skill, rather than challenge and striving to become better.
>
> You forget that is on you.

Dax I would argue that this would increase the challenge, not ease difficulty and skill.

Freed from needing to worry about wasting ordnance points, players are encouraged to time ordnance drops for the perfect moment. Calling in a damage boost just before a battle for instance.

Think about in Dax, why should a good player saving an ordnanced for a good moment be cheated out of some squarely earned points? It just simply hurts gameplay.

12

> why should a good player saving an ordnanced for a good moment be cheated out of some squarely earned points? It just simply hurts gameplay.

Why should a good player or rather the player that has currently the upper hand be rewarded with extra advantages in the first place?

Personal Ordnance is only entertaining for the player that is already “blessed”.
For the player that is currently on the losing end it is just a frustrating gameplay experience seeing his/her chances of a fair comeback getting strongly diminished by the player or team that has currently the upper hand and gets cluttered with goodies additionally.

That is what simply hurts the gameplay.

13

> Dax I would argue that this would increase the challenge, not ease difficulty and skill.
>
> Freed from needing to worry about wasting ordnance points, players are encouraged to time ordnance drops for the perfect moment. Calling in a damage boost just before a battle for instance.
>
> Think about in Dax, why should a good player saving an ordnanced for a good moment be cheated out of some squarely earned points? It just simply hurts gameplay.

sammy’s list of buzz words

  • competitive
  • fair
  • balanced
  • skillful
  • challenge
  • difficulty
  • tactical
  • advantage
  • situation
  • variety
  • predictability
  • teamwork

what does sammy want?

sammy wants a game where everything is random.

what does randomness remove

  • competition
  • fair play
  • balance
  • skill
  • challenge
  • difficulty
  • tactics
  • advantages
  • situations
  • variety
  • predictability
  • teamwork

in the previous two weeks sammy has been told the definition of balance 3-5 times
sammy still asks the definition of balance every thread.

everyone disagrees with sammy’s ideas
he talks as if people agree with him

anyone who has a primary school education could understand the meaning of a word if they are told it at least once a fortnight

so here’s a person who is going to go out of his way for a special someone

definition of competition

  • the activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.

randomness decreases superiority by not allowing players to play their performance by having their performance altered by the game

definition of fair

  • treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination

randomness removes equality

definition of balance

  • a situation in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.

randomness removes situation equality

definition of skill

  • the ability to do something well; expertise.

randomness lowers your peak performance by allowing the game to decide your performance

definition of challenge

  • a call to someone to participate in a competitive situation or fight to decide who is superior in terms of ability or strength

randomness gives someone superiority without their input

definition of difficulty

  • the state or condition of being difficult

randomness reduces difficulty by lowering the skill ceiling and swaying the game to and from your favour

definition of tactical

  • showing adroit planning; aiming at an end beyond the immediate action.

you cannot plan for unpredictable circumstances or predict the future of unpredictable circumstances

definition of advantage

  • a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position

randomness allows advantage through uncontrollable means

definition of situation

  • a set of circumstances in which one finds oneself; a state of affairs.

randomness makes sure that you are put in a circumstance in which you have much less input to decide a situation

definition of variety

  • the quality or state of being different or diverse; the absence of uniformity or monotony

while it’s true there is more different things to use, the capability of the player and the variety of situations and in-game permutations which can happen within a game are heavily reduced to to lack of predictability, co-ordination and personal performance

definition of predict

  • say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

you cannot estimate something that’s random and out of your control

definition of teamwork

  • the combined action of a group, especially when effective and efficient.

as already stated randomness reduces effectiveness and efficiency by reducing your input.

so there you go sammy a full comprehensive list of some of your buzz words

READ THEM

and NEVER use them AGAIN when trying to support RANDOMNESS

also just for a bit of help

definition of random

  • made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

despite this huge post sammy will either not read this or question these definitions or try to change the meaning to suit his needs

either way he will continue to question the definition of these words in other threads as well as support his ideas with them

halowaypoint this will be just another example of what people mean when they say sammy doesn’t listen.

14

I’d like filling ordnance progress from new when u die…or completely removed

15

Ridiculous. Ordinance should be removed or balanced to the point where it gives you ammo for your primary/secondary. I’m so tired of seeing this argument of oh its better for gameplay, or it still takes skill to do. Even though anybody with a half-brain would know to call down their Ordinance almost as soon as they get it so they can get their points again for a drop ASAP. Return the next Halo to classic gameplay remove Ordinance, Unbalanced Loadouts, and Perks.

16

> SNIP

yes, we have known for a long time that Sammy doesnt listen to anyone else, except those people who agree with him.

And, i strongly disagree with this. Why? Because i dont want to play Slayer where everyone has SAW and Rocket Launcher with them after 20 kills have been achieved, with the rest of the game feeling like its Fiesta instead of Slayer.

17

Oh boy, another one of these.

No, Sammy. It’s a risk you take yourself as the player. It’s not always going to pan out, that’s the point. How much easier do you want this game to be??

Off topic: Sometimes I honestly think you come here purely to troll the hell out of the forums. I mean really…

In fact, I think all you want is to have the most popular, or lots of popular threads on the front page with lots of replies…that’s honestly the only logical reason I can see for anything you post.

I for one, am not going to bother with any more of your threads and I hope others do the same. They’re just plain idiocy and symptomatic of what has gone wrong with my beloved game franchise and the fps genre as a whole.

This may sound harsh, but it’s not a personal attack. It’s an opinion, and I’m not going to apologise for it.

~ Duck

18

Sammy, every time you make a thread about extending the effect of ordnance on gameplay (you’ve made A LOT of these threads), your proposal is utterly torn to shreds by nearly everyone who responds to it. Please think about that.

On topic:
Absolutely not. As if randomly getting, say, a rocket launcher that you really don’t deserve isn’t enough, you’re asking for these random crutches to stack? That is the exact antithesis of what Halo is. If you were destroying the other team or players, you were rewarded with the satisfaction of getting high sprees and keeping the game in your favor, not weapons to further make the game more of a pwn-fest. You had to constantly fight your way to the power weapons, not press a button to have one instantly delivered to your feet for no cost.

When you remove the factors of fighting, skill (FACT, ordnance does NOT take skill to get), and balance (FACT, you CANNOT balance randomness), you get a cluttered mess that is a poor attempt to emulate the “ease” of Call of Duty. But of course, one thing that separates Halo 4 from CoD is killstreak stacking; it’s one of the points that 343 decided they should not pass. Want to know why?

There is nothing fun or balanced about stacking killstreaks. Just the other, I popped Black Ops 2 into my Xbox and got into a TDM game on Raid. Do you want to know what happened? The other team unleashed all of their killstreaks on us at once; they were obviously dominating. At the same time, there was a swarm, a VTOL warship, and a warthog in the air. There was no way we could win. That may be a more extreme case, but it’s an example of what stacking can do to the game nonetheless. I want you to tell me how a Halo-fied, weapon lockdown like that would be fun, balanced, fair, competitive, etc.

Thing is, you can’t. Ordnance is not balanced in that it’s a one-way street: it exists only to make the game easier for the winning party. There was no mechanic that has ever done this in Halo before 4. Trying to balance an already broken and UNFAIR mechanic is futile and a waste of resources (although, what TTD did with it was much better than the base system). What makes you think stacking ordnance would be a good idea?

Edited for emphasis on key words.

19

> So how would stacking be imbalanced exactly?

A. It could create a constant steam of powerweapons. More so than regular ordinance already does.

B. It would allow for easier acquisition of OP combos such as SAW+Damage Boost. (And take out the teamwork involved in at least sharing ordinance to accomplish this, or the movement/thought needed to acquire one of either from the map)

C. Snowball effect. If I’m on a spree and don’t call down my ordinance right away, I could end up with a second ordinance (if not a third) by the time I die. Now, if I simply call down one per life, I could easily have a supply of powerweapons for every spawn.

D. Ordinance itself is already unbalanced. It randomly distributes varying levels of advantageous weapons giving one player more or less opportunity to succeed than the next, regardless of player input.

20

No