cool, I'm not asking about your gaming experience, so stop using your statistics as valid reasons. all I'm hearing is "they weren't hard for me, so make them more difficult for everyone to satisfy my needs because my opinions are valid in this argument". you only really used your own experience and statistics (90% of the time? for you? nobody cares) while there are plenty of sources out there that also claim that drones are terribad enemies. also, why not cover drones as a whole rather than just in halo 3? you exclude a large factor of what made drones such bad enemies, considering halo 3 is the game that made everyone squishy.

also, "they never had a chance to hit the ground when I play" is not a valid reason to denote landing as a bad decision.

Let's not take any other enemies from any other Halo games. Let's just leave the halo 1 campaign with only halo 1 enemies

oh wait, brutes are here

Whose gaming statistics should I use in my post? I only know my own gaming experience, so therefore I can only present my own findings. You did the same in previous posts. Don't be a jackass just because our opinions and experiences differ.

You want a valid reason to denote landing with actual facts? here you go: because they CAN'T land in CE. and whether my given scenarios would make the drones OP or not is to be determined, and likely will vary from player to player and their skillset. Maybe it'll appear OP to you, but I'd bet money that for others that wouldn't be the case. This would be one of those "don't knock it til you try it" situations.

how am I being a jackass? is debating about contrasting viewpoints suddenly being a jackass? wouldn't that make you one too?
I don't care if they can't land in CE, I'm saying that they shouldn't be in CE period.
if you are so adamant about the "don't knock it until you try it", why not 60 rounds for the AR? why not a mantis? there are a couple of examples of where you contradicted the "don't complain unless you tried", and yet here you are trying to preach it.
another thing about the "don't try" thing is that I have tried it; in halo 2, in a few SP campaigns, halo 3, etc.

That's not all.

1. I don't remember advocating that the mantis not be in ce, and I advocated we try a 48 round assault rifle, and the 60 round is already in vanilla campaign. In conclusion I do practice what I preach
2.You were being a jackass by suddenly stating that my gaming experience and opinion doesn't matter in this argument because it's not hard fact, yet you hypocritically gave reasons for why it'd be OP that were derived from opinion and gameplay experience, which I didn't object to because I believe personal gaming experience is used in a valid argument. point is, hypocritical and jackass are synonyms in my book.
3.In halo 2/3/etc they COULD land, so obviously you haven't tried it.

Gúta? :D

edit: link for those who don't know http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/G%C3%BAta
Edited by SAS on May 18, 2013 at 07:46 PM

Edited by master noob on May 18, 2013 at 07:55 PM

1.the 60 round ar was in Halo ce's campaign, which I played, therefore the "til you try it" part of my statement remained true, so I had the right to "knock it"
2.A. How am I hypocritical? B.So if there are more than one opinion to back your claim it rings true? Thats unfortunately wrong sir, as opinion can never be fact, so therefore if my opinion matters not then your opinions matter not aswell. Unless, my personal gaming experience does harbour significance to the argument?hmm. Secondly, You failed to quote sources of opinions for any of your claims anyway.
3. You said you had tried fighting drones in the way I claimed they should perform in other halo games, and in other games drones couldn't land.

Edited by master noob on May 18, 2013 at 08:17 PM

guys, stop. It's not worth clogging up a thread and potentially locking it. This went from a discussion about the practicality of drones to just a pointless argument. If it's so important, please take it to pm's.

as much as I hope they don't make it into the campaign, I guess, like all of their decisions, it would be ultimately up to the CMT hierarchy.

Alright, I've had about enough of this.

Exhibit A:


Edited by master noob on May 18, 2013 at 08:17 PM

if you were done with this you would have stopped since we both were asked to stop, but since you so predictably continued I guess I have to yet again prove your false readings.

when I said I tried it, I clearly meant that I tried fighting drones in the other halo games. I was not arguing about making them land, thus you read wrong, thinking I was talking about landing.

you made a point about gaming opinions not being valid arguments? look in a mirror(or at least your own posts) considering that's pretty much a summary of what you've been doing.

I said forum, not thread. plus, I said some, not all. 2 things you took and mangled to your own twisted versions to try and win your pitiful argument.

why you would sink so low, I have no idea. perhaps it is because you refuse to believe that other people have different preferences than you, or you simply cannot handle the fact that you may be wrong. also, you really should have sent this in PM, seeing that we were asked right before your post to stop and take this to PMs, but you couldn't even oblige to that and had to further humiliate yourself by showing just how much you read into posts, which isn't much in the first place.

for one who says you didn't want an argument, you sure do form your posts in a way that demands argument. making drones faster? never landing? these are obviously going to be rebuked, yet you stated them in such a way to say "this is how it should be". then the obvious slap to the face, "they are easy to hit out of the air, unless you can't aim worth crap." regardless of whether that's your opinion or not, it clearly shows your disregard for how others handle things differently, saying that people can't aim if they can't shoot drones easily. then, while I address drones as a whole, you finally say "I wasn't talking about halo 2" which was the introduction to the enemy, giving the largest impact out of all the other games. then you proceeded to call me a jackass for trying to prove my point to your unchanging mind via discussion, which was totally out of the blue. why would you feel so self-righteous to call me a jackass when you yourself are just as knee-deep in this as I am? you then continue with the assault by saying I have not actually played the game due to your own reading error, to which you couldn't go back and reread. and then you finally backpedal on yourself, trying to prove to yourself that you aren't a hypocrite by poorly rebutting a point I made by saying "I didn't want to see the 60 round ar in cmt's campaign, but the fact that I agreed to compromise and try a 48 round ar means I'm not necessarily a hypocrite" even though your whole point was not to complain about something that was not experienced firsthand. compromising contradicts that, as you tried changing what hasn't been tried yet.

if you are still adamant on trying to fruitlessly win your precious argument in this thread, at least have the decency to do so in the form of a PM rather than clogging this thread further.
Edited by master noob on May 18, 2013 at 09:28 PM

And then kirby walks in.

Kirby Likes proving people wrong, Entry 3: Buggers (If these exact tags are used anywhere, it would be associated with H2SPP, but even then, idk)

Completely possible. Within reason? Sure, close enough. Should it be used?.. Well, with how well my bugger AI are doing so far, probably not.

And thats why I love kirby

Is it possible to make a condition where they start flying at certain percentage of health or when their shield (if they have one) is depleted? Or maybe when a leader is killed?

Well that's all scripted, so you could certainly tie it into a number of things, especially with OS.

So... Any visual updates that we can see? Like the environment, for example: forerunner structures..... Forerunner structures.... And.... I don't know, something.

Loading the walking biped into the flying biped or something different, kirbs?

If so

(script continuous bullcrap
(begin
(sleep_until (or (unit_get_health (unit (list_get (players) 0))) 0) (vehicle_test_seat banshee "driver" (unit (list_get (players) 0))))
(vehicle_load_magic air-bugger "driver" (unit (list_get (ai_actors "buggers") 0))))
(begin
(sleep_until (not (or (not (unit_get_health (unit (list_get (players) 0))) 0)) (vehicle_test_seat banshee "driver" (unit (list_get (players) 0)))))
(unit_enter_vehicle (unit (list_get (ai_actors "buggers") 0)) exit "driver")
)

If not
*curiosity*

For future Bugger discussion, check the H2SPP thread. Grunt Eater, your response is over there.

I've got a request for D40:

Master Chief should go rescue Echo 419 at the crash site. I think the chief should have acted more like a hero, and it's one of Halo's greatest flaws that he drives away from his burning allies. I thought about doing this myself, but I think it would go well with your campaign.

To be honest, I think he had a slightly higher priority of getting off of Halo. Not to mention he didn't exactly have time anyway. If she crashed unto the bridge, he probably could/would have saved her. Besides, having her die adds a certain element to the gameplay.

Her craft gets disabled pretty high up, and since the Banshees are still pursuing it even as it burns, I think it's pretty safe to say that she was killed. Either way, there's not really a quick route to the ground via Warthog that would allow Chief to escape the Autumn's impending detonation.

"there's not really a quick route to the ground via Warthog that would allow Chief to escape the Autumn's impending detonation."

True, but we're talking about a man who falls from Earth orbit and survives. Twice.
I understand why Echo 419's death is significant, but I want a level where the chief at least tries to save her. Maybe it stems from watching Black Hawk Down recently.

It's not gonna happen. Stopping would ruin the whole point of the warthog run, which is to reach your destination as quickly as possible.

I think such a situation would be better-suited to Victor 933 in the level.... 343 Guilty Spark, I think? It's much more believable that he could have survived than Echo 419, as you never see what actually brings him down. Plus you pass his downed Pelican on your course through the level, rather than getting close to the end, then taking a massive detour off into the desert, then coming all the way back to where you were going to begin with.

You could ways just re-animate the pelican to crash in a spot maybe down the path of the warthog run. You'd of course have to change up the spot where Echo419 appears, ect but still I think it'd actually be a kinda cool idea to at least react to Echo419's crash

maybe if you had to fend off a few enemy waves to rescue them while the countdown timer is still ticking.

now THAT would be intense

Maybe if foe hammer crashed in your way and blocked your path, then you had to re-route somehow.

Echo419 takes heavy fire, flies over you and crashes somewhere ahead of you. Flood rush. You drive to crash sight, she gets on gunner (or passenger seat) and you continue on the time attack. Cut-scene. You guys get off Warthog and run towards Longsword, she gets shot down. You stop and turn around to see what had happened. Cortana tells you to go, and you proceed to run into the Longsword. Other cut-scenes. End.

Ta-dah.

Some of what I've said could also be cut-scenes; like when when it flies over you damaged and crashes somewhere ahead of you, and when she crawls out of the crashed Pelican to get into the warthog.
Edited by P3 on May 19, 2013 at 08:48 PM

I agree. And i always found it stupid that the autumn was sliced in half and connected by such a small bridge anyway :/

maybe if it blocks your path, then you had to activate a few switches (while fending off waves of enemies) that caused the floor to elevate, allowing you to drive underneath with the rescued passengers. maybe you also have to open a door to gain access to an escort hog to rescue the passenger from the pelican, all while the countdown timer is ticking down.

some would call this overboard, not me!

It was just a notch in the spine of the ship, not the whole thing. It just looks large because the ship is massive.

The hog run isn't something I'm that interested in messing with.