It would take some clever strategy but if you had like a party of 16 people, 8 "human" flood people mixed in with AI flood (much like left 4 dead), I think a carrier form can do some serious damage. Especially if the human team is preoccupied with other flood.
I'm too lazy to quote the post with the video in this thread, but it was prefaced with "info on the incinerator cannon", in which one of the top 343 guys played CTF on the new map. First of all, he gave the same non-explanation for not allowing the carrier to drop the flag, which I think makes it pretty clear that there is absolutely no reasoning. He also said that the map is a "good sniper map" because of an elevated area at each base, and that snipers could hang back and "pick off" enemies on much of the map. I don't understand why anyone would make it a point to show that what is often the most powerful weapon in a match is in this case the most powerful by a large margin. He didn't temper this statement by saying something like "but there's still a ton of cover", "a sniper can be flushed out if your team focuses on doing so" or "a sniper can be easily suppressed with rifle fire" alleviate what should be natural fears. It's like I'm listening to a player who's wielding it right now or tends to run for the sniper at every opportunity, as opposed to someone who has ever been sniped. I'm not quite sure what purpose the incinerator cannon would have in a 1v1. I know that without the GL there aren't many skill-testing power weapons, but hopefully two are better than the incinerator, the sniper being one. Including more than a couple power weapons would put less emphasis on controlling power weapons. The incinerator cannon in a 1v1 would mean that you can, in most cases, prevent the enemy from getting closer than 30 feet ( if a spartan is 7 feet tall) from you without giving you a free kill, which wouldn't work on smaller 1v1 maps. If anything, the threat of being teamshotted or being forced by multiple enemies into a less than ideal situation with the incinerator, as well as the possibility of getting two kills with one shot, is what allows for an interesting range of outcomes and situational skill. In a 1v1, none of these possibilities are present, and the outcome is too predictable.
The thing is, I'd rather have an Incinerator cannon placed on a 1v1 map rather than rockets , simply because of the single shot cartridge, whereas with rockets, you have two shots before you reload. Then again, I'd stay away from either when making a 1v1 map, but that's not to say they can't work.
Are carrier forms the absurd swollen bulbous things which can either be shot to explode, or can waddle up to you an fall over to explode? They would have to change the waddling animation to a jog, which might look silly, because those things had really small legs- they were top-heavy. Otherwise, It could be a slow, unfun "fat kid" experience. The health of the carrier forms could be modified, but as they were in the campaign they could be taken out safely with a couple of shotgun shots from a safe distance. I don't like the idea that the player won't even have to be facing the human when it explodes, even if you have to commit suicide. Do you really want to have them spawn AI flood parasites? I suppose that could work with three parasites per explosion, even if humans didn't have shields, as long as the parasites were slower than a player. It would still not leave much up to the carrier form player, though. Do the same thing you did before (try to get up close safely) but with no aiming for the lunge, no jumps, and AIs often doing the killing (perhaps it would be a good idea to let you control one of the parasites?). @Shanon, I agree.
What about the Railgun? I feel like that could be a great 1v1 power weapon as opposed to the Incinerator Cannon. It still has one shot, and it looks like it takes more skill to use properly.
I always wondered why no one ever used the splazer. I would assume it would be a more difficult to use version of the sniper, which would reward you with a slightly thicker projectile. well, there goes blood gulch. Good riddance.
I think it might be a good idea if humans spawn with, say, pistols or ARs, or a weaker, basic weapon like that. And scattered in wide open areas across the map are stronger weapons with little ammo that respawn after maybe two minutes. Humans can survive with the basic weapons, but it encourages them to move to vulnerable areas to go for weapons so they can survive longer.
Yeah, but infection has always been a base shotgun. I expect that to return (not saying I want it to). Still, it appears that AR start is where the customs are moving to, and that is a great change still!
343i confirmed that none of their multiplayer maps will contain interactive hazards. Therefore the stalactites make Waterworks ineligible and the train on Terminal makes that map a no go as well.
The SMG was the PERFECT spawn weapon for infection (in a no "headshots only" world), lower the weapon damage and you force people to work together to kill and if you scatter ammo, especially on a linear map (which is what I was making at the time in H3) then you get forward movement because people deplete it quickly. AR is a good, but weaker second. Shotty should be a map pickup, not a spawn weapon, in most cases. Of course you could always balance the MM gametypes and make a pistol/shotty combo work but again, with no "headshots only" option I'd rather go for automatics for the aforementioned reasons.
But getting a Bulltrue with a shotgun will always be "cooler" then focus firing with a SMG's. I doubt they take infection as a serious competitive gametype so getting the player to feel badass (specially when they kill whole team with bulltrues)in a casual game is there goal imo. I'm not saying its right or wrong but it can work that way.
Actually they can't. They said that it will cause little drama and ruining famous maps by taking those aspects out will cause drama. I myself would love a Terminal remake. That would be awesome. But Frank wouldn't do something like that. IMO the remake is Longshore. There's been a lot of clues released about the remake and they all point heavily towards it. Not a great map, nor a bad one, but it didn't receive its fair share in Halo 3 due to how late it came out. So Longshore seems logical.
I was thinking about it, but I decided not to mention that in my post because I didn't know that it had ammo (I assumed that it had charge), and it's also a direct-fire precision weapon. If it has an ammo setting, though, I agree. I also noticed that I missed a single post saying what the flood carrier forms are- that they are the tiny parasites, not the human sized exploders which release them. It was also pointed out by Chuck that the zombie speeds will be adjustable- thanks, I forgot about that. I was so focused on the flood aspect that I wasn't even thinking about if they would have options to let the zombie flood pick up weapons (if they don't need the sword), let alone speed, but it would make sense for them to have those options. @Sargeant Sarcasm- if the SMG damage was to be decreased, why would it be better a better spawning option than a (possibly proportionately nerfed) AR? The SMG is ever so slightly more precise in H3, so there was not as much of a need to pace. The clip size is big enough so that there is little need to decide whether or not to reload at a potentially risky time.
Just wondering.. what clues have lead us to beleive its Longshore?... The resaurant La Carte De Oaxica is a mexican restaurant, yes they do serve some fish, but thats not their main focus. Its not on the shoreline either, its a couple blocks away. If you look at the ancient burial mounds and pyramid things in Oaxica, you can see that it looks more like sandbox. or just some desert/ruins map. seriously.. if you guys are stretching it that far i could just as easily say that the remake is going to be Turf, because the restaurant is in a city just like turf is "OMG thats it".. but thats just retarded.
Turf isn't big, man. Can someone post/link all of the clues? I didn't hear about the Mexican restaurant one.