.....what?

They were made using HEK and then ported back to xbox. You're making a lot of assumptions and placing labels on things you clearly know nothing about.

I like slipping around the map, going off the beaten path in an effort to avoid detection. But this doesn't work very well on, say, Blood Gulch. You can stay mobile, you can hide, but it's a box canyon, not a jungle. You can't "always" keep your team sneaky and mobile because the environment isn't always suited to it.


Since you brought up military history, let us look to the Normandy landings at D-Day: 50,000 entrenched Axis soldiers against an Allied force that outmanned them 3:1, yet suffered anywhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more casualties. You can go back even further, to the Alamo, where an offensive force of 1,800 suffered 2x-3x as many casualties as the defending force. Granted, these two instances were ultimately losses for the defenders, but they're good enough examples to dismiss your "bug under foot" analogy; a bug under foot doesn't take your leg off at the knee.


I like military history. I like trying to implement some semblance of strategy into the way I play Halo. But I also acknowledge that not every strategy that works in real life is applicable in Halo's multiplayer, and that no matter what your approach is, it has to be flexible. It has to adapt to an array of ever-changing variables. A plan that cannot be adapted on the fly is a plan that is destined to fail. I'm all for drawing parallels between the game and real-life precedent, when I feel that it's relevant and that I can provide information that's mostly correct. But your explanation of the relationship between realworld and video game tactics doesn't really seem to be either.

Wars aren't fought like this anymore. The age of holding formation as you engage the enemy ended with the machine gun, and now we rely on things like "fire and maneuver" (which actually depends on splitting up your forces instead of keeping them all congregated in one place) and "suppression" (which doesn't work well in Halo because a hail of bullets zinging overhead doesn't rattle players in a video game the same way it rattles a human under fire). You're telling people to read up on history and strategy while making outlandish claims like "maintaining a rigid formation and ignoring all secondary targets is preferable to a continuous, up-to-date stream of information about the ever-changing state of the battlefield" and "Defensive positions don't work against superior numbers," both of which completely disregard historical precedent and the existence of the radio.
Edited by Echo77 on Feb 14, 2016 at 12:43 PM

I used to like echo. But now I love him. #nohomotho.

Says the guy who draws flowers.

why navy seals lol



I don't like that. In both of your examples the defending side ultimately took irreplaceable losses that definitely pitched the balance of power in future battles.

Sparky's not wrong on this one. You never attack 'walled cities' in modern combat. But Halo is probably the furthest thing from that lol.

__________________________, tactics are a fallacy in games like Halo. The reason successful players appear so uncoordinated and random is because that's what works in this kind of environment. It's an arena shooter. Gotta be clutch ;)

You bring up Battlefield but that's a completely different animal. The levels are larger, the combat is slower - there's probably a discernible benefit from putting effort into coordinating maneuvers. Take that a step further and visit ARMA where playing without is suicide...there's a spectrum of what you play for enjoyment to a simulator, and Halo's leaning hard left. Strategy beyond "go mid!" or "defend!" are a waste of time and effort because it'd conflict hard with individual initiative in a shooter like this.
Edited by BKTiel on Feb 14, 2016 at 02:24 PM

HEY THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EXPLORING YOUR BODY! MY REGIME IS JUST A LITTLE MORE HECTIC THAN SAY........YOUR MOMS.



I actually disliked you before you disliked me here is proof:





Bruh u dun hav wut it takes to fite me, I hav 300 cunfirmed kills and am in teh navy



Heh pity-full attempt.

Id say try mine on for size but Tark is so fat everybody, even tool refuse to compile him.



Edited by Super Danker on Feb 14, 2016 at 02:47 PM
Edited by Super Flanker on Feb 14, 2016 at 02:50 PM

I pointed out that both of the examples I mentioned were ultimately losses, but used them because they're two instances that most people have at least heard of. They're also sufficient for dismissing the notion that a defending force faced with superior numbers is as helpless and impotent as a bug under foot. These are scenarios in which a comparatively small, defensive force was able to inflict more casualties than a larger, offensive force.


While this is true in reality, in the context of Halo's multiplayer there are no future battles. A multiplayer match isn't a component of a larger conflict, it's a self-contained battle that has no impact on anything that comes after it. All that matters is who has the most kills at the end of the round, and if we were to judge realworld conflicts with that same criteria, we would say the Texans won at the Alamo and the Germans won at Normandy.


If Sparky wasn't wrong, why wouldn't you attack a fortified city? He believes holding a position against superior numbers to be suicidally ineffective and goes on to cite "military strategy" and "the history of war," despite a number of historical conflicts that contradict this mindset.
Edited by Echo77 on Feb 14, 2016 at 03:23 PM

Just because I find screaming, gasping, near fatal choking, rapid asphyxia and excessive salivation a "turn on" that does not give you the right to brand me a pervert and an asian pervert at that!
Edited by Super Asian Pervert on Feb 14, 2016 at 04:52 PM
Edited by Super Flanker on Feb 14, 2016 at 04:53 PM

Whoops. Misinterpreted the points here, my bad.