> If it had to stay in some form, the only option I would accept is to limit it strictly to grenade drops and ammo drops for whatever non-power weapons you are currently holding.
> But personally, I think that’s really a bad solution that completely misses the actual issue. To anyone who likes ordnance, it’s because of the power weapons they get from it. It’s really a lopsided option, and were they to go that far, the whole ordnance system could be removed in the first place. On the other hand, it’s clear that there is no way power weapons can be kept in ordnance drops while satisfying those of us who oppose them. The reality of it is that 343i managed to create such a divide that there is really no room for a proper compromise.
> Personally, I’d return back to the drawing table and rethink it all over. As far as I know ordnance was put in the game to make it more accessible, to give everyone the chance to get power weapons. But that’s not really making it more accessible, i.e. making the game easier to learn. It’s just handing out free rewards without actually requiring the player to learn anything. It’s really the wrong way to approach accessibility.
> That’s why for Halo 5 I’d really, really rather abandon the whole concept of ordnance in general. Of course power weapons could still be pods dropping from the sky, there’s nothing wrong with that, but the underlying system should be the one we grew accustomed to in the original trilogy. And now, to make that system accessible to players not interested in learning the weapon spawn times, a timer should pop up 30 seconds before the weapon drops.
> That’s really the fairest way to solve the issue in my opinion. It’s still rather lopsided, completely disregards the people who liked the idea of ordnance. But as I said, that issue can’t really be fixed fairly. However, this solution would give more competitive players the consistent and fair power weapon spawns they want while on the other hand not making the system confusing for people who don’t know how the spawn timers work.
> I understand this isn’t really in accordance with the “rules” of this thread. But really, I think the whole ordnance system doesn’t really benefit anyone in the long run and is so inherently flawed that it simply doesn’t deserve to exist.
I think you’ve hit the nail in the head tsassi, I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t feel that personal ordnance could ever really be done in a way that really pleases both sides of the argument. But I’m challenging that belief with this thread, just incase I might be wrong.
When you say “To anyone who likes ordnance, it’s because of the power weapons they get from it.”, is it not possible that there are a lot of people that just like the novelty of being able to call in something for themselves, whether it’s powerful or not?
This is what I’m hoping to get a better idea of, because I have no idea right now.
Like you, at the moment, I suspect that the general reason that people like personal ordnance, is because it gives them easier and more frequent access to power weapons.
If it is because of power weapons, I guess that means there is no compromise that involves keeping PO.
I like your idea of having a timer on power weapons, as opposed to giving people personal ordnance. It seems like it might help solve the problem (which I really don’t see as a problem to begin with) of Halo not being “accessible” enough for new players, or players who don’t want to time weapons.
To any personal ordnance fans, would you see this as an acceptable compromise? (tsassi’s idea that is)