Tertiary Weapon Slot

I do like the idea of carrying a primary, a sidearm and a special. That is sort of the model of the contemporary genre, and I don’t necessarily think it would break the classic flow in Halo. But by all means I’m sure the counterargument is pretty strong. At the very least it would be nifty to be able to toggle weapon pickups in custom games perhaps from 0-10, something along those lines. Anyways, I’m fully aware of the incoming barrage lol so let me know what you think! :slight_smile:

I think it would be interesting to have three weapons at a time in campaign. This would just increase the flexibility that players have in engaging enemies or different combat scenarios. I don’t know if I want this in multiplayer. I think 2 weapons is a good number to have in multiplayer because it means that they can’t have all their bases covered at all times. If you could have three weapons in MP then you could just have a BR for mid range, a shotgun for close range, and a sniper for long range all on one player and they would have no weak area in which you could engage them. If you limit that to just two weapons then the player could potentially have say a shotgun and a BR but then be vulnerable to longer ranges and they would need to close the distance to be effective.

TLDR: I wouldn’t mind this in campaign but probably not multiplayer.

It would be interesting to use in customs.

I don’t think I want it in campaign.

And definitely not in multiplayer.

Just seems alittle to “Destiny” for my personal taste, I’ve always enjoyed the fact that I can carry 2 power weapons if I really wanted to. Just even having that ability is nice

> 2533274866022405;2:
> I think it would be interesting to have three weapons at a time in campaign. This would just increase the flexibility that players have in engaging enemies or different combat scenarios. I don’t know if I want this in multiplayer. I think 2 weapons is a good number to have in multiplayer because it means that they can’t have all their bases covered at all times. If you could have three weapons in MP then you could just have a BR for mid range, a shotgun for close range, and a sniper for long range all on one player and they would have no weak area in which you could engage them. If you limit that to just two weapons then the player could potentially have say a shotgun and a BR but then be vulnerable to longer ranges and they would need to close the distance to be effective.
>
> TLDR: I wouldn’t mind this in campaign but probably not multiplayer.

Why would a restriction that ultimately is good for multiplayer not be good in campaign as well? The two weapon system is great because it means you cannot have all your bases covered at one time. By having more than two weapons, you can cover every range of engagement, you’ve even said as much. There’s a reason why many covenant weapons can’t have their ammo replenished as well, because part of the game is having to swap out weapons for different engagements. I’m not sure I want every interaction with the game to be a walk in the park, where I’m never pressured to drop a good and reliable weapon for a stronger power weapon. If I can run a BR, Sniper and Sword all at the same time, I’m set for the entire game. My only problem is ammo, and lets be real, swapping between three weapons means you’ll be able to save ammo more effectively as well.

I dunno, I’m not really seeing any benefits to this whatsoever. Destiny features a similar weapon system to this, but it is a fundamentally different game entirely. You never switch weapons out from the battlefield because it’s a looter shooter. Same with Borderlands, the two weapon limit of Halo is there because it’s an Arena game focused on pickups.

I could only really see this being done with something like the sticky detonator or target locator from H4 and not standard weapons. Otherwise it will take away from the gameplay that is the result of the 2 weapon limit.

I think it would be sweet to always have your pistol in my opinion and then two weapons that you can interchange just for campaign tho… DONT touch multiplier. IMO

It might be the model of the ‘contemporary genre’ but it certainly is not Halo. Halo has always had a two weapon system. Delegating a pistol to a third slot not only degrades the weapons in that classification, but breaks a perfect system that has been established for two decades and functions best with the sandboxes of this franchise. It would only serve to overcomplicate things, and that is something any game should try to stay away from. So, no. I disagree.

Except in custom games no.

Part of why that works in some games is that it comes with a limitation of what weapons you can carry in those slots. You have a slot for primary weapons, one for sidearms, and one for more specialized weapons.

Halo is all about seamlessly switching any weapon, for any weapon. You can carry any combination of two weapons you want, there are no dedicated slots. I don’t think this would fit well with a third slot.

And keep in mind a lot of the Campaign levels are often built around your weapons.

What you start with… what you need to earn / find. What risks you take. Is it worth swapping for that particular weapon.

Having three weapons on hand could easily break that part of the sand box.

> 2533274810177460;10:
> Part of why that works in some games is that it comes with a limitation of what weapons you can carry in those slots. You have a slot for primary weapons, one for sidearms, and one for more specialized weapons.
>
> Halo is all about seamlessly switching any weapon, for any weapon. You can carry any combination of two weapons you want, there are no dedicated slots. I don’t think this would fit well with a third slot.

Entirely agree here. Plus from a control-scheme perspective the only way to include additional slots would be holding down Y for a ‘special’ slot or addig a third/fourth/etc cycle option which would get annoying.

That said, as I recall Shadows of Reach does contain multiple examples of Spartans listed with 3 weapons (one always being the sidekick) so potentially there’s scope for a special case with the sidekick always being available as a last-resort backup

> 2533274889281364;7:
> I think it would be sweet to always have your pistol in my opinion and then two weapons that you can interchange just for campaign tho… DONT touch multiplier. IMO

MorseyBaby just conveyed a similar sentiment above in terms of always having access to your sidearm. Giving me some major Doom 2016 vibes, and I don’t hate it (for campaign only as you say). There’s need to be some thought about how something like that would be incorporated.

> 2533274811807878;4:
> Just seems alittle to “Destiny” for my personal taste, I’ve always enjoyed the fact that I can carry 2 power weapons if I really wanted to. Just even having that ability is nice

I think my initial post was misleading. I didn’t necessarily mean that every slot would be relegated to certain weapon types i.e. Primary, Secondary and Special. I was really just thinking about adding another rotation on the weapon cycle but that could become gratuitous. Perhaps they could have the press & hold weapon swap button feature to access the tertiary weapon slot but you could assign any weapon you want there.

I don’t think carrying 3 weapons in Halo is a good idea, in any mode. The two weapon max, and the decision of which two you’re going to keep is such an integral part of Halo’s design…

I think it would be cool if you picked a tertiary weapon (combat knife, club, sword, pistol, e.t.c) as a cosmetic option, and this would change your assassination animation to use the weapon though… >.>

Nope, two is a part of Halo that stays. I don’t think adding a spot would belong at all.

> 2533274874872263;12:
> > 2533274810177460;10:
> > Part of why that works in some games is that it comes with a limitation of what weapons you can carry in those slots. You have a slot for primary weapons, one for sidearms, and one for more specialized weapons.
> >
> > Halo is all about seamlessly switching any weapon, for any weapon. You can carry any combination of two weapons you want, there are no dedicated slots. I don’t think this would fit well with a third slot.
>
> Entirely agree here. Plus from a control-scheme perspective the only way to include additional slots would be holding down Y for a ‘special’ slot or addig a third/fourth/etc cycle option which would get annoying.
>
> That said, as I recall Shadows of Reach does contain multiple examples of Spartans listed with 3 weapons (one always being the sidekick) so potentially there’s scope for a special case with the sidekick always being available as a last-resort backup

That would be an interesting way to balance it. Having just a dedicated sidearm slot, with other weapons being cycled at will. The question is, would you be able to replace your sidekick with other sidearms, such as the Plasma Pistol, Mangler, possibly even Needler? Basically anything your Spartan carries on their waist, or would it ONLY be the sidekick?

One interesting way to balance it would be to do something similar to switching weapons during dual wield, when you pull out your sidearm you drop whatever weapon is in your hand, as you only have room on your back for one larger weapon.

I dunno I still think no matter what you do it might get messy, as opposed you the simple two weapon system…

Cool to think about, not really worth the hassle though.

I think this would be great for PvE modes. But not PvP

I prefer just two slots that can be filled with any weapon. It forces the player to make decisions. Honestly I think handling grenades the same way might also be a good idea, except maybe increase the amount of each grenade to 3 like in odst and you just have 2 grenade type slots.

> 2585548714655118;11:
> And keep in mind a lot of the Campaign levels are often built around your weapons.
>
> What you start with… what you need to earn / find. What risks you take. Is it worth swapping for that particular weapon.
>
> Having three weapons on hand could easily break that part of the sand box.

This about sums it up.

> 2614366390849210;15:
> I don’t think carrying 3 weapons in Halo is a good idea, in any mode. The two weapon max, and the decision of which two you’re going to keep is such an integral part of Halo’s design…
>
> I think it would be cool if you picked a tertiary weapon (combat knife, club, sword, pistol, e.t.c) as a cosmetic option, and this would change your assassination animation to use the weapon though… >.>

This however, sounds amazing. Seems like a good way to expand upon the way assassinations were handled in halo 5.

> 2533274810177460;17:
> > 2533274874872263;12:
> > > 2533274810177460;10:
> > > Part of why that works in some games is that it comes with a limitation of what weapons you can carry in those slots. You have a slot for primary weapons, one for sidearms, and one for more specialized weapons.
> > >
> > > Halo is all about seamlessly switching any weapon, for any weapon. You can carry any combination of two weapons you want, there are no dedicated slots. I don’t think this would fit well with a third slot.
> >
> > Entirely agree here. Plus from a control-scheme perspective the only way to include additional slots would be holding down Y for a ‘special’ slot or addig a third/fourth/etc cycle option which would get annoying.
> >
> > That said, as I recall Shadows of Reach does contain multiple examples of Spartans listed with 3 weapons (one always being the sidekick) so potentially there’s scope for a special case with the sidekick always being available as a last-resort backup
>
> That would be an interesting way to balance it. Having just a dedicated sidearm slot, with other weapons being cycled at will. The question is, would you be able to replace your sidekick with other sidearms, such as the Plasma Pistol, Mangler, possibly even Needler? Basically anything your Spartan carries on their waist, or would it ONLY be the sidekick?
>
> One interesting way to balance it would be to do something similar to switching weapons during dual wield, when you pull out your sidearm you drop whatever weapon is in your hand, as you only have room on your back for one larger weapon.
>
> I dunno I still think no matter what you do it might get messy, as opposed you the simple two weapon system…
>
> Cool to think about, not really worth the hassle though.

Yeaj totally agree there - from a gameplay standpoint I don’t mind - just found it interesting reading that in Shadows of Reach. Entirely possible it’s irrelevant.