Forums / Community / Poll Discussions

Infinite Battle Royale

OP munk07

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
No. Halo is and always will be an Arena shooter. Bungie and 343 both tried with loadouts and the Community voiced their opinions. Equal starts and no loadouts is the way Halo has always meant to be played.

Also, I would agree that pickups on maps for altering weapons could be a nice multiplayer touch, but I'm not good for the whole Battle Royale craze at all.
This is being close minded. Halo should be defined by its Arena Multiplayer but shouldn't be limited by it. If Halo Infinite only has Arena play. Im not buying it.
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
I got a better idea, give us large maps like forge world. Give us forge. Then the community will make a battle royal map if needed.
You need more players for Battle Royale to work properly. Increase the custom game lobby count. Increase the map sizes. Increase everything.
Do you really need a 100 player start? Sooner or later the battle royal is going to be 16 players or less.
Now I'm with you that Halo could benefit by having a max player count > 16 players. But I think it would be better if 343 focus on making us the sandbox and the tools/toys to play with that sandbox instead of focusing on giving us the experience they design. That is where I believe Halo 4 went wrong with spartan ops. Instead of giving us the maps in forge and having us create the enemy (and ally) spawns for us to play around with, they took it upon themselves for the level and mission design and in order to keep up with demand they had to take shortcuts reusing maps up to 3 times.
Now there is no set player count for Battle Royale, you could do with 8 even but more players does mean more interactions (kills, alliances, sudden but inevitable betrayals). So if the cap was up to 64 or even 32 that would be enough to wage battle royal, but all 343 would need to do is just optimize the netcode to support that, and give us a working forge. However if that is not enough for you, well the MCC is coming to PC starting with Reach which includes Forgeworld the largest Halo map Bungie has ever made. Maybe the modding community could put a 100 player multiplayer mod for such a mode. You can set weapons and vehicles to random and set live cap to 1. So it would work.
Battle Royale wouldnt be Battle Royale with 16 players. The whole point is that it's all out war. I do not see how working on Custom Games to work with 100 players would hurt the game. I call that improvement.
Battle Royal isn't all out war, it is last one standing. What I was saying is that I'm with you on the multiplayer sandbox of the game could be better with 32 or even a 64 player cap. Would that be okay with you or are you going to demand 100 players (even though a good number of them will be pretty much a freebie kill)?
If so then why not just mod the player cap in to include 100 player mod(or 200 or 95 or 117 players ect..) then put the mod online.

It sounds like to me you are telling 343 to make the Battle Royal gametype. I'm saying that would be a terrible idea. All they need to do is up the player count a little, give us the forge and tool kits, and let the community make the gametype.
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
I got a better idea, give us large maps like forge world. Give us forge. Then the community will make a battle royal map if needed.
You need more players for Battle Royale to work properly. Increase the custom game lobby count. Increase the map sizes. Increase everything.
Do you really need a 100 player start? Sooner or later the battle royal is going to be 16 players or less.
Now I'm with you that Halo could benefit by having a max player count > 16 players. But I think it would be better if 343 focus on making us the sandbox and the tools/toys to play with that sandbox instead of focusing on giving us the experience they design. That is where I believe Halo 4 went wrong with spartan ops. Instead of giving us the maps in forge and having us create the enemy (and ally) spawns for us to play around with, they took it upon themselves for the level and mission design and in order to keep up with demand they had to take shortcuts reusing maps up to 3 times.
Now there is no set player count for Battle Royale, you could do with 8 even but more players does mean more interactions (kills, alliances, sudden but inevitable betrayals). So if the cap was up to 64 or even 32 that would be enough to wage battle royal, but all 343 would need to do is just optimize the netcode to support that, and give us a working forge. However if that is not enough for you, well the MCC is coming to PC starting with Reach which includes Forgeworld the largest Halo map Bungie has ever made. Maybe the modding community could put a 100 player multiplayer mod for such a mode. You can set weapons and vehicles to random and set live cap to 1. So it would work.
Battle Royale wouldnt be Battle Royale with 16 players. The whole point is that it's all out war. I do not see how working on Custom Games to work with 100 players would hurt the game. I call that improvement.
Battle Royal isn't all out war, it is last one standing. What I was saying is that I'm with you on the multiplayer sandbox of the game could be better with 32 or even a 64 player cap. Would that be okay with you or are you going to demand 100 players (even though a good number of them will be pretty much a freebie kill)?
If so then why not just mod the player cap in to include 100 player mod(or 200 or 95 or 117 players ect..) then put the mod online.

It sounds like to me you are telling 343 to make the Battle Royal gametype. I'm saying that would be a terrible idea. All they need to do is up the player count a little, give us the forge and tool kits, and let the community make the gametype.
Custom games are not the same as ranked play. I mess around in customs. I don't in ranked. Also, mods are not being added to Halo Infinite, its for MCC on PC.

If Halo Infinite has an incredible Forge system, allowing the commmunity to make its own Battle Royale that is possibly later implemented into Matchmaking. Okay. If the population count is 40+, I'll be happy. 100 would be a blessing.

Also, Battle Royale is pretty much all out war. It's tactical. Its intense and suspenseful. You think before you act.
In my terms of Battle Royale, I play Blackout on Black Ops 4. I don't really like Fortnite or Apex, but I like what Treyarch did with their version. I'd like to see 343Is unique version of the genre.
People overlook the idea of Battle Royale. Some have respawns. It isn't always a one and done scenario. I get that not everyone likes it. I don't really like Firefight, and I do think survival games can be overrated, but I don't think 343 should remove it.
Terg500 wrote:
Not a fan of walking around for 10 minutes and then getting hit by a sniper. I prefer Halo to be fast and ruthless.
It is fast and ruthless. Especially when you're the one with the sniper.
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
I got a better idea, give us large maps like forge world. Give us forge. Then the community will make a battle royal map if needed.
You need more players for Battle Royale to work properly. Increase the custom game lobby count. Increase the map sizes. Increase everything.
Do you really need a 100 player start? Sooner or later the battle royal is going to be 16 players or less.
Now I'm with you that Halo could benefit by having a max player count > 16 players. But I think it would be better if 343 focus on making us the sandbox and the tools/toys to play with that sandbox instead of focusing on giving us the experience they design. That is where I believe Halo 4 went wrong with spartan ops. Instead of giving us the maps in forge and having us create the enemy (and ally) spawns for us to play around with, they took it upon themselves for the level and mission design and in order to keep up with demand they had to take shortcuts reusing maps up to 3 times.
Now there is no set player count for Battle Royale, you could do with 8 even but more players does mean more interactions (kills, alliances, sudden but inevitable betrayals). So if the cap was up to 64 or even 32 that would be enough to wage battle royal, but all 343 would need to do is just optimize the netcode to support that, and give us a working forge. However if that is not enough for you, well the MCC is coming to PC starting with Reach which includes Forgeworld the largest Halo map Bungie has ever made. Maybe the modding community could put a 100 player multiplayer mod for such a mode. You can set weapons and vehicles to random and set live cap to 1. So it would work.
Battle Royale wouldnt be Battle Royale with 16 players. The whole point is that it's all out war. I do not see how working on Custom Games to work with 100 players would hurt the game. I call that improvement.
Battle Royal isn't all out war, it is last one standing. What I was saying is that I'm with you on the multiplayer sandbox of the game could be better with 32 or even a 64 player cap. Would that be okay with you or are you going to demand 100 players (even though a good number of them will be pretty much a freebie kill)?
If so then why not just mod the player cap in to include 100 player mod(or 200 or 95 or 117 players ect..) then put the mod online.

It sounds like to me you are telling 343 to make the Battle Royal gametype. I'm saying that would be a terrible idea. All they need to do is up the player count a little, give us the forge and tool kits, and let the community make the gametype.
Custom games are not the same as ranked play. I mess around in customs. I don't in ranked. Also, mods are not being added to Halo Infinite, its for MCC on PC.

If Halo Infinite has an incredible Forge system, allowing the commmunity to make its own Battle Royale that is possibly later implemented into Matchmaking. Okay. If the population count is 40+, I'll be happy. 100 would be a blessing.

Also, Battle Royale is pretty much all out war. It's tactical. Its intense and suspenseful. You think before you act.
In my terms of Battle Royale, I play Blackout on Black Ops 4. I don't really like Fortnite or Apex, but I like what Treyarch did with their version. I'd like to see 343Is unique version of the genre.
People overlook the idea of Battle Royale. Some have respawns. It isn't always a one and done scenario. I get that not everyone likes it. I don't really like Firefight, and I do think survival games can be overrated, but I don't think 343 should remove it.
Yeah we don't need battle royal ranked. Also 343 did remove firefight and that was call Spartan Ops. Firefight made a return when the other didn't do as well as expected.

We are not talking about removing a feature that has always been a part of halo. You want a new feature that has never been in Halo before because Call of Duty has it. That is just so wrong on so many levels. Also IMHO ranked battle royal does not necessarily mean skill wins. For more information look up research papers on Wizards Duel. You would find in pure mathematical simulations the best player is often the first to get eliminated.

343 should not make a battle royal game mode for Halo. If battle royal is to be in halo, it should be a community created match, and if it is popular enough (which it should if done well with the BR craze going around) then maybe 343 can add it in the matchmaking lobby. After all Bungie did not make Zombies, the community did, then Bungie added it later. The same should be done with any battle royal mode that is to be halo's take on it.
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
I got a better idea, give us large maps like forge world. Give us forge. Then the community will make a battle royal map if needed.
You need more players for Battle Royale to work properly. Increase the custom game lobby count. Increase the map sizes. Increase everything.
Do you really need a 100 player start? Sooner or later the battle royal is going to be 16 players or less.
Now I'm with you that Halo could benefit by having a max player count > 16 players. But I think it would be better if 343 focus on making us the sandbox and the tools/toys to play with that sandbox instead of focusing on giving us the experience they design. That is where I believe Halo 4 went wrong with spartan ops. Instead of giving us the maps in forge and having us create the enemy (and ally) spawns for us to play around with, they took it upon themselves for the level and mission design and in order to keep up with demand they had to take shortcuts reusing maps up to 3 times.
Now there is no set player count for Battle Royale, you could do with 8 even but more players does mean more interactions (kills, alliances, sudden but inevitable betrayals). So if the cap was up to 64 or even 32 that would be enough to wage battle royal, but all 343 would need to do is just optimize the netcode to support that, and give us a working forge. However if that is not enough for you, well the MCC is coming to PC starting with Reach which includes Forgeworld the largest Halo map Bungie has ever made. Maybe the modding community could put a 100 player multiplayer mod for such a mode. You can set weapons and vehicles to random and set live cap to 1. So it would work.
Battle Royale wouldnt be Battle Royale with 16 players. The whole point is that it's all out war. I do not see how working on Custom Games to work with 100 players would hurt the game. I call that improvement.
Battle Royal isn't all out war, it is last one standing. What I was saying is that I'm with you on the multiplayer sandbox of the game could be better with 32 or even a 64 player cap. Would that be okay with you or are you going to demand 100 players (even though a good number of them will be pretty much a freebie kill)?
If so then why not just mod the player cap in to include 100 player mod(or 200 or 95 or 117 players ect..) then put the mod online.

It sounds like to me you are telling 343 to make the Battle Royal gametype. I'm saying that would be a terrible idea. All they need to do is up the player count a little, give us the forge and tool kits, and let the community make the gametype.
Custom games are not the same as ranked play. I mess around in customs. I don't in ranked. Also, mods are not being added to Halo Infinite, its for MCC on PC.

If Halo Infinite has an incredible Forge system, allowing the commmunity to make its own Battle Royale that is possibly later implemented into Matchmaking. Okay. If the population count is 40+, I'll be happy. 100 would be a blessing.

Also, Battle Royale is pretty much all out war. It's tactical. Its intense and suspenseful. You think before you act.
In my terms of Battle Royale, I play Blackout on Black Ops 4. I don't really like Fortnite or Apex, but I like what Treyarch did with their version. I'd like to see 343Is unique version of the genre.
People overlook the idea of Battle Royale. Some have respawns. It isn't always a one and done scenario. I get that not everyone likes it. I don't really like Firefight, and I do think survival games can be overrated, but I don't think 343 should remove it.
Yeah we don't need battle royal ranked. Also 343 did remove firefight and that was call Spartan Ops. Firefight made a return when the other didn't do as well as expected.

We are not talking about removing a feature that has always been a part of halo. You want a new feature that has never been in Halo before because Call of Duty has it. That is just so wrong on so many levels. Also IMHO ranked battle royal does not necessarily mean skill wins. For more information look up research papers on Wizards Duel. You would find in pure mathematical simulations the best player is often the first to get eliminated.

343 should not make a battle royal game mode for Halo. If battle royal is to be in halo, it should be a community created match, and if it is popular enough (which it should if done well with the BR craze going around) then maybe 343 can add it in the matchmaking lobby. After all Bungie did not make Zombies, the community did, then Bungie added it later. The same should be done with any battle royal mode that is to be halo's take on it.
Slayer is Team Death Match. Capture the Flag is Capture the Flag. Etc. Etc. Basing games originality is fine but Im tired of hearing how Halo us unique.
I also meant Ranked as in Matchmaking. I like earning XP. I want to be able to enjoy a playlist that I enjoy, and so does the community of gamers as a whole. All of these forums are filled with Halo only players it seems. There are other games out there and Halo needs to expand itself. For Halo to survive, it needs to adapt. You cannot expect the populatuon of the game to increase if 343I only focuses on the wants of Halo Only fans.

Also creating a custom game version of Battle Royale isn't enough. Unsorted Guy already made a version in Halo 5. It's fun for a while, but without an incentive to play.. It gettings boring.

Call ot Duty has a version of Battle Royale. I never stated that I wanted a Battle Royale soley because of Call of Duty. I enjoy PUBG as well, but was never found of Fortnite or Apex. Who cares even if Call of Duty has it? Halo should too. It's like stating that Call of Duty had Team Death match so Halo should have been more unqiue. It's a new genre and it should be added.
munk07 wrote:
No. Halo is and always will be an Arena shooter. Bungie and 343 both tried with loadouts and the Community voiced their opinions. Equal starts and no loadouts is the way Halo has always meant to be played.

Also, I would agree that pickups on maps for altering weapons could be a nice multiplayer touch, but I'm not good for the whole Battle Royale craze at all.
This is being close minded. Halo should be defined by its Arena Multiplayer but shouldn't be limited by it. If Halo Infinite only has Arena play. Im not buying it.
There's already 4 other BR games. Go play those. Halo wouldn't last in this setting because the gimmick is only fun for so long. There's no point in 343 wasting resources on a game mode that require a ton of upkeep and nothing about it that sets it apart from other games' BR modes. It's not being closed minded. It's called forward-thinking.
munk07 wrote:
No. Halo is and always will be an Arena shooter. Bungie and 343 both tried with loadouts and the Community voiced their opinions. Equal starts and no loadouts is the way Halo has always meant to be played.

Also, I would agree that pickups on maps for altering weapons could be a nice multiplayer touch, but I'm not good for the whole Battle Royale craze at all.
This is being close minded. Halo should be defined by its Arena Multiplayer but shouldn't be limited by it. If Halo Infinite only has Arena play. Im not buying it.
There's already 4 other BR games. Go play those. Halo wouldn't last in this setting because the gimmick is only fun for so long. There's no point in 343 wasting resources on a game mode that require a ton of upkeep and nothing about it that sets it apart from other games' BR modes. It's not being closed minded. It's called forward-thinking.
Yet all of you fan boys want the Standard 4v4 Arena. That makes a lot of sense.
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
No. Halo is and always will be an Arena shooter. Bungie and 343 both tried with loadouts and the Community voiced their opinions. Equal starts and no loadouts is the way Halo has always meant to be played.

Also, I would agree that pickups on maps for altering weapons could be a nice multiplayer touch, but I'm not good for the whole Battle Royale craze at all.
This is being close minded. Halo should be defined by its Arena Multiplayer but shouldn't be limited by it. If Halo Infinite only has Arena play. Im not buying it.
There's already 4 other BR games. Go play those. Halo wouldn't last in this setting because the gimmick is only fun for so long. There's no point in 343 wasting resources on a game mode that require a ton of upkeep and nothing about it that sets it apart from other games' BR modes. It's not being closed minded. It's called forward-thinking.
Yet all of you fan boys want the Standard 4v4 Arena. That makes a lot of sense.
I never said 4v4 did I? Most of my Halo career didn't even center around 4v4.

  • Halo 2: Played any and ALL Ranked
  • Halo 3: Played any Ranked, more towards Objective. Some social.
  • Halo: Reach: Some ranked, mostly social forT eam Objective, BTB, and some Invasion.
  • Halo 4: Played ranked to get CSR50's. Played mostly Objective and BTB constantly.
  • Halo 5: Played Ranked to get a few Champs here and there. Vast majority of games in BTB.
SO, there's my Halo career layout. As you can see, I started with some 4v4 in my earlier days, and I still will occasionally, but most of my game time falls into Objective 4v4 (or 5v5) and Big Team Battle.

It's not about being a fan boy. It's about being loyal to the series. I'm all for new features, improvements, and changes, but they should also be something that holds Halo apart from the rest. These BR titles are nowhere near as hyped as they once were. They're already losing their audience and 343 knew this would happen. They don't want it, and neither do the majority of the community.
No..nononononononononoononononononono! Innovate don't copy!
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
No. Halo is and always will be an Arena shooter. Bungie and 343 both tried with loadouts and the Community voiced their opinions. Equal starts and no loadouts is the way Halo has always meant to be played.

Also, I would agree that pickups on maps for altering weapons could be a nice multiplayer touch, but I'm not good for the whole Battle Royale craze at all.
This is being close minded. Halo should be defined by its Arena Multiplayer but shouldn't be limited by it. If Halo Infinite only has Arena play. Im not buying it.
There's already 4 other BR games. Go play those. Halo wouldn't last in this setting because the gimmick is only fun for so long. There's no point in 343 wasting resources on a game mode that require a ton of upkeep and nothing about it that sets it apart from other games' BR modes. It's not being closed minded. It's called forward-thinking.
Yet all of you fan boys want the Standard 4v4 Arena. That makes a lot of sense.
I prefer big team battle, as well as invasion. Anyways here is another quote that explains the situation perfectly.
No..nononononononononoononononononono! Innovate don't copy!
So what does that mean, innovate, don't copy. Well lets take 2 Halo games, now these might not be the best halo games but these games both had to deal with modern mechanics that had been developed after Halo had peaked. One game innovated, and the other copied. That mechanic was load-outs.

So Halo Reach was the first halo game with load-out system. Load-outs is when you respawn with a predetermined set other than the standard starting weapon that everyone would start with (i.e. Pistol + Rifle). In Halo Reach the load outs were tied to the gametype. Game type could have 1 to make that more classic start or 6 to set up sort of a class system but doesn't lock you in that class as you can still pick up weapons and armor abilities along the map. This was radically different from the way other FPS games did their load-outs where every player's load-out was tied to their progression and as they advanced they unlocked new weapons or abilities. With Reach's system you could set the playing area equal, letting people spawn with as much or as little power as possible. In the other systems, the only way to correct a broken load-out was to nerf something.

So Halo 4 also had a load-out system, but it was your standard unlock through progression. Granted this is better than the Halo 5 req but it goes to show the difference between innovation, and copying. See with Reach the tools were given to the community to control the load-out system. In Halo 4 343 had to control the load-out system. One was an innovation putting their own twist on the mechanic. The other was the same as Call of Duty's system. The Battle Royal the OP seems to be asking for is a copy, not an innovation.
munk07 wrote:
munk07 wrote:
No. Halo is and always will be an Arena shooter. Bungie and 343 both tried with loadouts and the Community voiced their opinions. Equal starts and no loadouts is the way Halo has always meant to be played.

Also, I would agree that pickups on maps for altering weapons could be a nice multiplayer touch, but I'm not good for the whole Battle Royale craze at all.
This is being close minded. Halo should be defined by its Arena Multiplayer but shouldn't be limited by it. If Halo Infinite only has Arena play. Im not buying it.
There's already 4 other BR games. Go play those. Halo wouldn't last in this setting because the gimmick is only fun for so long. There's no point in 343 wasting resources on a game mode that require a ton of upkeep and nothing about it that sets it apart from other games' BR modes. It's not being closed minded. It's called forward-thinking.
Yet all of you fan boys want the Standard 4v4 Arena. That makes a lot of sense.
I prefer big team battle, as well as invasion. Anyways here is another quote that explains the situation perfectly.
No..nononononononononoononononononono! Innovate don't copy!
So what does that mean, innovate, don't copy. Well lets take 2 Halo games, now these might not be the best halo games but these games both had to deal with modern mechanics that had been developed after Halo had peaked. One game innovated, and the other copied. That mechanic was load-outs.

So Halo Reach was the first halo game with load-out system. Load-outs is when you respawn with a predetermined set other than the standard starting weapon that everyone would start with (i.e. Pistol + Rifle). In Halo Reach the load outs were tied to the gametype. Game type could have 1 to make that more classic start or 6 to set up sort of a class system but doesn't lock you in that class as you can still pick up weapons and armor abilities along the map. This was radically different from the way other FPS games did their load-outs where every player's load-out was tied to their progression and as they advanced they unlocked new weapons or abilities. With Reach's system you could set the playing area equal, letting people spawn with as much or as little power as possible. In the other systems, the only way to correct a broken load-out was to nerf something.

So Halo 4 also had a load-out system, but it was your standard unlock through progression. Granted this is better than the Halo 5 req but it goes to show the difference between innovation, and copying. See with Reach the tools were given to the community to control the load-out system. In Halo 4 343 had to control the load-out system. One was an innovation putting their own twist on the mechanic. The other was the same as Call of Duty's system. The Battle Royal the OP seems to be asking for is a copy, not an innovation.
How am I asking for a copy?
Hmmmm... 100 is too many people, in my opinion. A big -Yoink- battle on a large scale map with 16-32 some players, Awesome. All for that. But I have my limits. Also, I feel like making a Battle Royale for Halo: Infinite would break what 343 is trying to do with Infinite. They aren't considering a Battle Royale, at least not an official. They've said if we want it, make it ourselves in Forge. This, in my opinion, is the best way to go about it. Make the maximum custom game lobby 32 or more and then have the community make their own Battle Royale modes and maps. Or heck, just make it a big -Yoink- lobby of 32 people and make it a giant Slayer match because that's more fun. Who needs one life when you can have many?
Combrando wrote:
Hmmmm... 100 is too many people, in my opinion. A big -Yoink- battle on a large scale map with 16-32 some players, Awesome. All for that. But I have my limits. Also, I feel like making a Battle Royale for Halo: Infinite would break what 343 is trying to do with Infinite. They aren't considering a Battle Royale, at least not an official. They've said if we want it, make it ourselves in Forge. This, in my opinion, is the best way to go about it. Make the maximum custom game lobby 32 or more and then have the community make their own Battle Royale modes and maps. Or heck, just make it a big -Yoink- lobby of 32 people and make it a giant Slayer match because that's more fun. Who needs one life when you can have many?
Battle Royales have modes for more than one life. I think people are stuck on this one life concept. I want a map that feels alive, a battleground, unexpecting where the enemies. Battle Royales are intense and thrilling. That's what I want, but with Halo.
Wheather its a good idea or not, 343 said no battle royal. And I just want them to keep their word. Im ok with it myself, but put it in a diferent halo game, not infinite.
I think we dont have a problem if 343 make a battle Royal
Perhaps make halo battle royale a separate free to play standalone title.
Battle Royale is overrated and overused
In my opinion, it’s okay if they add battle royale to infinite, I mean it’s just a game mode if you don’t like it just don’t play it ._. Halo has a lot more of game modes you can play not just battle royale...
One thing that people fail to realize is that Battle Royale is a MODE, not a GENRE. When horde modes were popular in COD and Gears of War, Halo added firefight. It didn't need mechanics changed, it still played like Halo, but it was another mode that went along with what I guess was a trend. It was a welcome edition. It innovated an already existing mode without selling their souls to mainstream ideas.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5