So, this raises the question that what if Halo gets that same numbers boost for lobby population?
Well, I’ve just been in a thread discussing the possibility of introducing Pelicans and Vultures and other assorted uber units that would barely fit in Forge World as we now know it. 32 players would require us to double Forge World (if it was brought back) in order to gain in a sense the same kind of scope.
We could certainly bring at this point any kind of vehicle into Halo 5’s editor mode.
BTB will be completely re-defined. Capture the flag will now be held on Bandar Desert size maps with massive vehicles and amounts of vehicle warfare.
Not only this, but custom games are going to certainly wackier, bigger, be faster spread around, and definitely more action-packed.
So, other than those opinionated benefits, what do you think Halo could gain from this pop count increase?
I don’t think Halo is really compatible with large scale gameplay. To be honest, when I play a game like Battlefield in a 64 player game, not only does the game feel empty from time to time, but the distances seem to long. The distances seem a bit too long despite the fact that the weapon sandbox of the game has been designed with long range combat in mind.
The weapon sandbox of Halo is somewhat incompatible with long range gameplay. On a map the size of those in Battlefield, anything below the range of precision weapons would be completely useless. DMR and BR would barely be good for long range spraying. The sniper rifle would be the only actually viable weapon to use.
On the other hand, due to the large open areas, the game would be absolutely dominated by vehicles. It would be too far off of even the traditional BTB gameplay of Halo that is, at least to some extent, relatively fast paced.
So, personally I don’t really see Halo having any more than 16 players. It very well might get double in player count, but I don’t think that’s something Halo should be going for.
I doubt they would boost the size to 32, but in my opinion it would be 16v16. Regardless, if they did they would need to re-think on how they create maps in Halo 5 because as I see it they would build a map for example in Halo 4 for what they think is for 8v8, but put so much cover on it. It reduces the amount of players to 6v6 or 4v4. They also overcrowd the maps in Halo 4 with vehicles, so I hope they make the maps in Halo 5 no matter the player count with the right amount of vehicles and less cover. (In order for it to balance out the amount of players for the map appropriately and have the amount of vehicles on the map correctly.)
I see exactly where you’re coming from now that you mention it. True, most scenarios would leave automatics useless (save the turret), I think that the solution to the issue here is to maybe introduce a dual-zoom on the DMR/BR, keep the sniper as is, and introduce some new weapons that could equalize the infantry a bit better with the new vehicles introduced to the sandbox.
I’m not sure how we could balance the dual-zoom idea, nor am I sure what type of weapon we need to take down pelicans or vultures or maybe (this is such a mofoing long-shot) a scarab.
But I think despite the major drawback you mentioned, we can overcome it by innovation.
> @Tssassi
>
> I see exactly where you’re coming from now that you mention it. True, most scenarios would leave automatics useless (save the turret), I think that the solution to the issue here is to maybe introduce a dual-zoom on the DMR/BR, keep the sniper as is, and introduce some new weapons that could equalize the infantry a bit better with the new vehicles introduced to the sandbox.
>
> I’m not sure how we could balance the dual-zoom idea, nor am I sure what type of weapon we need to take down pelicans or vultures or maybe (this is such a mofoing long-shot) a scarab.
>
> But I think despite the major drawback you mentioned, we can overcome it by innovation.
But the problem I have with that is that altering the weapon sandbox to fit that kind of large scale gameplay would fundamentally change the game at every level. First of all, there is no way you are going to get long range combat to work with descope. Flinch is a horrifying mechanic that should never come back. Whatever you have, when you don’t have descope, there is no way any precision weapon is going to be able to go against the sniper rifle because the sniper is more powerful.
To make it work would dumb long range combat down tremendously. For Battlefield it only works because the gameplay is more role focused. A sniper is a sniper not because they picked up a sniper rifle, but because they chose that role at spawn. That’s all they can do, and they will have their own difficulties such as close range combat and reticle sway. In Halo the sniper rifle is a power weapon that really gives the player a serious advantage at range. Anyone with a sniper rifle on a large map is going to dominate if they have at least a bit of skill at using it. If someone engages them at close range, all they can do is switch to their secondary weapon which is not a pistol, but an actually viable close range weapon.
Power weapons, a mid-range focused sandbox, the utility weapon; these are all fundamental aspects of what makes Halo what it is. They are aspects created with those mid-sized maps in mind. They are things designed to work whether you pit the players against each other on a small symmetric arena or in a relatively large canyon.
If Halo were to get Battlefield style large scale combat, I think it would deserve its own spin-off game. It deserves something that doesn’t have the same expectations of traditional Halo game, something that can truly embrace the large scale combat. However, as far as the main series goes, your ideas go against the traditions of Halo. At this point, I still want to hold on to those traditions.
> @Tssassi
>
> I see exactly where you’re coming from now that you mention it. True, most scenarios would leave automatics useless (save the turret), I think that the solution to the issue here is to maybe introduce a dual-zoom on the DMR/BR, keep the sniper as is, and introduce some new weapons that could equalize the infantry a bit better with the new vehicles introduced to the sandbox.
>
> I’m not sure how we could balance the dual-zoom idea, nor am I sure what type of weapon we need to take down pelicans or vultures or maybe (this is such a mofoing long-shot) a scarab.
>
> But I think despite the major drawback you mentioned, we can overcome it by innovation.
I think it can be also remedied by vehicles, teleporters, and man cannons, Halo style.
But I think the slower and more powerful vehicles should be placed more towards the middle. Sprint should be enabled. Troop hogs and pelicans would be appreciated. Destructible environments would make it harder to traverse for vehicles, so we must have key vehicle areas and somewhat open areas. Starting Precision weapons only and forced magnums, any choice grenades. All players have mobility or grenadier.
Sniper and spawns are in starting points. Spartan Laser, Rockets, etc- more to the middle and sides( also where the main vehicle entries are.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Halo should NEVER get away from it’s player count. If they up it at all 10v10 at most. Halo isn’t a mass scale shooter. It isn’t designed to play that brand of game. HOWEVER, if they did want to do something on a larger scale I wouldn’t mind seeing a Battlefield style standalone Halo game. Actually, not only would I not mind, I would love to see a Halo game like that. Just keep the basic 4v4 to 8v8 Halo the same.
> I don’t think Halo is really compatible with large scale gameplay. To be honest, when I play a game like Battlefield in a 64 player game, not only does the game feel empty from time to time, but the distances seem to long. The distances seem a bit too long despite the fact that the weapon sandbox of the game has been designed with long range combat in mind.
>
> The weapon sandbox of Halo is somewhat incompatible with long range gameplay. On a map the size of those in Battlefield, anything below the range of precision weapons would be completely useless. DMR and BR would barely be good for long range spraying. The sniper rifle would be the only actually viable weapon to use.
>
> On the other hand, due to the large open areas, the game would be absolutely dominated by vehicles. It would be too far off of even the traditional BTB gameplay of Halo that is, at least to some extent, relatively fast paced.
>
> So, personally I don’t really see Halo having any more than 16 players. It very well might get double in player count, but I don’t think that’s something Halo should be going for.
The maps wouldn’t need to consist of only large open areas, it’s entirely possible to create a massive map that has near equal amounts of close, mid, and long ranges. Battlefield already does this to an extent, it’s not impossible or even a bad idea to use a Shotgun most of the time. Sandtrap is actually a fair example of how a map can support Infantry fights and Vehicular mayhem; the structures on the map are difficult or impossible to get a vehicle through, giving Infantry a place to stay out of vehicles’ paths and duke it out against each other. The Elephants even do this, but to a lesser extent as players inside are vulnerable from the rear.
Using Forge certain sections of the map could even be blocked off to create smaller maps, which would be another positive of this being done.
Maybe for the weapons they could create versions specifically for massive battles. So an AR with a 2x sight, BR with 3x, DMR with 4x. Or have weapon customisation specifically for that gametype.
> Maybe for the weapons they could create versions specifically for massive battles. So an AR with a 2x sight, BR with 3x, DMR with 4x. Or have weapon customisation specifically for that gametype.
But then you would have to balance two completely different weapon sandboxes for two completely different game modes. In essence, you’d be creating two games in the timeframe of making one, which won’t work out well, at all.
> > Maybe for the weapons they could create versions specifically for massive battles. So an AR with a 2x sight, BR with 3x, DMR with 4x. Or have weapon customisation specifically for that gametype.
>
> But then you would have to balance two completely different weapon sandboxes for two completely different game modes. In essence, you’d be creating two games in the timeframe of making one, which won’t work out well, at all.
Like I said before, it all really comes down to map design to make something like this work. There really is no other solution.
> > > Maybe for the weapons they could create versions specifically for massive battles. So an AR with a 2x sight, BR with 3x, DMR with 4x. Or have weapon customisation specifically for that gametype.
> >
> > But then you would have to balance two completely different weapon sandboxes for two completely different game modes. In essence, you’d be creating two games in the timeframe of making one, which won’t work out well, at all.
>
> Like I said before, it all really comes down to map design to make something like this work. There really is no other solution.
> > > Maybe for the weapons they could create versions specifically for massive battles. So an AR with a 2x sight, BR with 3x, DMR with 4x. Or have weapon customisation specifically for that gametype.
> >
> > But then you would have to balance two completely different weapon sandboxes for two completely different game modes. In essence, you’d be creating two games in the timeframe of making one, which won’t work out well, at all.
>
> Like I said before, it all really comes down to map design to make something like this work. There really is no other solution.
While I do agree with you on the point that map design is the only way to make something like this work, I can’t say that I’m much of a fan of the idea anyway. Halo has its own niche that distinguishes it from CoD or Battlefield, and it shouldn’t try to be like either of those two shooters.
Many maps now would work perfectly with 32 players, including some from Halo 2.
Waterworks, Containment, Headlong, Sandtrap, Avalanche, Spire, Boneyard and a few others would work as they are now with 32 players.
The best way to incorporate a 32 player playlist or greater is to evolve the following 2 playlist.
Invasion & Dominion.
These would work similar to BF Rush (Invasion) and Conquest (Dominion). So we know these 2 playlist could work very well if revolved.
BTB can remain the same, but you could have a Massive BTB (MBTB) which would have your slayer and current objective playlist for 32 players.
Remember the current Playlist would still remian, we are just adding to it. So for those who love their 4v4. 4v4 will continue to play a key roll in Halo and always will.
Halo REACH Forgeworld in its current state could easily have games with 500 people. It does not need to be any bigger for 32 players.
You kind of have the wrong idea of what Halo is if you really suggest something like that. Halo is arena style shooter. It isn’t meant to be realistic. Battlefield takes pride in being realistic for players as Halo does the same with arena style gameplay. If they can implement all those things and still keep it arena styled than sure but I cannot think of any way to have something so large scaled and still feel like an arena style game, which is what Halo is.
Your best course of action is to think of a way to replicate the arena feel on a large and more elaborate scale.
If they are to do that, I think the maps should accommodate. Not only in size, but adequate structures and infantry pathways. Halo can’t be like Battlefield in the big maps they have, it has to be made for the game Halo is.
Supporting 32 player and making it work for Halo would be very ambitious and it if they managed to have it work, they’d just be huge. They’d have to be really cautious.
Firstly, in case we recieve a raised player count it should definitely not affect the already existing and traditional playlists but it should be added with a separated and new playlist with its own specific game types and maps.
Secondly, in Halo the individual has always had a large impact on the game outcome, even in BTB.
I think that should be kept in mind before raising the player count.
Okay, I haven’t played these large Battlefield style multiplayer games, so this is just pure opinion on my part… but…
I’m not against larger teams, nor do I think Halo should stay at 8v8 as the highest number of players just because that’s the way it has always been. 10, 12, or up to 16… it doesn’t really matter if the gameplay works well.
I think it could work if…
The XL maps are more of the Reach variety than Halo 4 variety. Spire, Boneyard, for instance, could play very well with more than 8 players to a team. You could climb mountains, and hardly anything was out of bounds. H4’s maps are too cluttered, and the ceilings too low for their size.
The vehicles are scaled to accommodate. In other words, the hogs can’t be made of paper machete. And there needs to be multi-seated air vehicles…
The infantry combat can’t be overrun by vehicles. Cluttering up the roadways is not the way to fix this.
-Restrict the extra large player games to certain gametypes, like Invasion and Dominion, where multiple avenues of attack, areas of defense, and objectives are all part of the game. This will help to keep players focused.