CA didn't make Halo Reach maps(Idc about DLC because Reach had forgeworld DLC was just a money grab) I said average of 1 per map not 1 per team. So 0,1,2 are good amount to have on the map if it suits that many. The reason you give for needing PP's is because it EMP's? in my previous post i explained why that's a bad thing Seems like a lot of anti vehicle weapons, Not sure how it plays but seems like all vehicles might get blown up within initial fight then become like 80/20 with 80% of people been on foot 80% of the time (Just a guess) I just hope the default Halo 4 MM hasn't persuaded your opinion on how strong the vehicles should be, Better then Default Halo 4 MM=/=Good map. The map been fairly cramped pathways makes the vehicles weak enough without much anti vehicles, Maybe you where aiming for a 80/20 idk. That's just what I think.
Hmmm alright. Maybe remove Sticky Det, put rockets there, put laser where original rockets were? I keep their timers at 180 and give the rockets little ammo. I think 4 PPs per map shouldn't do any harm. Amazing Halo 3 maps had tons of PPs (Valhalla had 2 in each base alone, Standoff had a bunch, etc... plus they had Power Drains, which were like PPs on steroids) and didn't destroy vehicle gameplay; the same goes for a bunch of maps that were tunnel-ish.
What, so because you don't think the DLCs were worth it they magically don't exist for the purposes of this argument? How does that make sense? They were Reach maps, and CA made them. Simple as. Whether or not they were a "money grab" is irrelevant, and also one could make exactly the same argument for Halo 3 DLC. Forgeworld did not make DLC redundant, far from it.
I know CA did not make Halo: Reach's Vanilla Disc Maps. Halo: Reach's DLC was no different than Halo 4's DLC and so far Reach's has even been a lot better, so how was it a money grab? I'll pay $10 for 3 official Halo maps every week! It is worth the money and extends the longevity of my favorite FPS to play. $10 is nothing in the day and age we live in, that's the price of dinner for one day. Regardless, I was only talking about how Certain Affinity makes cramped BTB maps since the days of Reach... the statement had nothing to do with plasma pistols. Halo: Reach Map Packs ---------------------------------- The only Reach DLC I did not like was Defiant. Highlands and Condemned I just didn't care for although Highlands wasn't too bad and most people liked it. Condemned I never had fun on. The Firefight map was cool. I consider that DLC similar to the Crimson Halo 4 DLC... both I don't care for. The Noble Map Pack was awesome and one of my favorite BTB and Invasion maps to play on was Breakpoint. Anchor 9 was sick... and Tempest was good too although that was one of Certain Affinity's 6v6 too-hilly cramped & shoved in BTB playlist maps. And the Anniversary Map Pack... was awesome! for an extra $5 (total $15) we got 6 maps and an awesome Firefight map... that was an excellent deal!! It was the size of two whole Halo map packs plus a Firefight bonus map and it cost less than 2 map packs would cost. So no... not a money grabber... well worth the money. EMP Anti-Vehicle Weaponry ---------------------------------- My point was in past Halos, particularly Halo 3 and Halo: Reach because that is what I played most... they had at the very least 2 plasma pistols on every BTB map and sometimes more. As was mentioned by "Loscocco", Valhalla had 4 at least and there was also the Power Drain equipment in Halo 3, another EMP weapon. In Halo: Reach there was plasma pistols AND the grenade launcher which totaled 2 EMP weapons as well for that game. Halo 4 only has 1 EMP weapon (unless I am forgetting something). So yeah... we need plasma pistols and more than 1 on all BTB maps. You may not agree EMP is needed for BTB... but it's a big part of Halo's gameplay. You seem to just hate EMP weapons (and DLC).
DLC's are not part of the game, The game is the thing I spent $60 on anything else is a bonus/expansion pack/DLC and I don't buy DLC except sandbox DLC for Halo 3, So i don't care about most DLC and the way its mostly used in the market at the moment, and because I didn't buy the DLC I can't give any insight or judgements on them or the maps merits as a map regardless if they where DLC or on disk. Point is Cramped maps make inherently weaker so anti vehicle weapons aren't as necessary and Halo 4 maps are cramped.(And original DLC comment was agreeing with that) I would try to keep as much of the original power weapons because it makes it more "official" varies the gameplay up gives players more choices more power weapons to control(not always a good thing if to many power weapons but don't want to little power weapons on map) and remove some of the plasma nades or something. Hemorrhage had 2 PP's and 4 plasma nades and that's one of the most open maps for vehicles. (And 2 concussion rifles, 1 plasma launcher, 2snipers. There was a lot of reasons people liked hemorrhage but one of them was the strength of the vehicles on that map) But it's really up to you how strong you want the vehicles, I would prefer over 50% of people in vehicles 50% good judge is after a game what did you find most people "wanting" to use, If players where using warthogs as transport to get to a sniper then vehicles probably to weak, If players are getting spawn camped by banshees then vehicles are probably to strong.
Preferring not to use something as a point of reference because you haven't experienced it is fair enough. That's not the same as rejecting its validity entirely, or saying that it doesn't count somehow. I also fail to see why you invoked the idea of it being a "money grab" when this is, once again, a personal perspective and in no way relevant to the idea of using them as examples.
Made a lobby, you can sign up here. Side note: I'd love it if someone could check over the BTB maps that will be playing so that the games aren't an unbalanced catastrophe.