Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: PvP Campaign Missions...a totally different idea!
  • Subject: PvP Campaign Missions...a totally different idea!
Subject: PvP Campaign Missions...a totally different idea!

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

This is an idea that I came up with a few weeks ago that I have not heard of anyone else suggesting.

PvP campaign missions...

The idea is that every campaign mission is a complete PvP matchup. One team is a group of Elites and the other is a group of spartans. Each team would have a set of objectives for the mission just like a normal campaign mission, however, they would be working against each other.

Obviously some of the details would need to be worked out, but at least it would be something different than a totally linear campaign.

Mission examples:

1. Some missions would simply be a very large battle. 100's of AI on both sides, scarabs, tanks etc. And the mission objective would simply be to win the battle. Mini objective would be to get to rally point or break enemy lines to get reinforcements or MAC blasts etc.

2. Other mission may be like a team of elites trying to plant a bomb in a human base. They would be fighting human resistance and calling in support; while a team of spartans chases them down to try and stop them from planting the bomb while they fight through squads that the elites are calling in.

3. Others would simply be trying to complete objectives that are completely unrelated, but that have the teams run into each other at certain choke points. One team will conquer and will be set back, however, the resistance for both teams would increase as the level went on to allow for the other team to always have a chance to catch back up.

Anyways, I know it is kinda out there, but at least it is something different from the same old linear campaign. In the end, of course Reach will be destroyed, but I think the missions are completely up to interpretation.

What do you think? Ideas or suggestions?

[Edited on 07.16.2009 8:51 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2009 8:51 AM PDT

that would be sick. like a mix of territories, assault, CTF in one big mission, elites and spartans.
Everyone could have their own "AI" telling them to take over this spot, or plant the bomb, and other stuff. that would be awesome

  • 07.16.2009 8:53 AM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: MichaelYEAHH
that would be sick. like a mix of territories, assault, CTF in one big mission, elites and spartans.
Everyone could have their own "AI" telling them to take over this spot, or plant the bomb, and other stuff. that would be awesome


That is the general idea. It has the possibily of incredible replay value. Almost as much as regular multiplayer depending on the map.

I would much rather play a giant campaign battle vs. 4 other players than play a BTB with 16.

I don't know why you wouldn't want to jump on board this idea.

  • 07.16.2009 10:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

like Sony's MAG?

  • 07.16.2009 10:21 AM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: Mayan Mayhem
like Sony's MAG?


I have never heard of it, I only have a 360. Is it extremely similar to what I am talking about? Or just the general idea?

  • 07.16.2009 10:22 AM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

Would be great, but how many players? Since all players would need to render their own stuff, this would all need to be hosted by a single Xbox/internet connection. So what if the number of players is still around 4 max for campaign? It wouldn't be possible -- unless you can only do this on certain sections of campaign missions, and then it would be like a better version of Firefight.

  • 07.16.2009 10:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

@Tyguy101
basically, its the OP's idea, on a relatively larger scale. i think its 160 v. 160, and with capturing of objectives/killing of commanders, you gain bonuses (i.e. airstrikes, weapon caches etc.)

or large-scale Battlegrounds like in WoW

[Edited on 07.16.2009 10:27 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2009 10:26 AM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

Posted by: Mayan Mayhem
@Tyguy101
basically, its the OP's idea, on a relatively larger scale. i think its 160 v. 160, and with capturing of objectives/killing of commanders, you gain bonuses (i.e. airstrikes, weapon caches etc.)

or large-scale Battlegrounds like in WoW
This is impossible without servers, and Halo won't have servers because too many people play.

  • 07.16.2009 10:31 AM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: Mayan Mayhem
@Tyguy101
basically, its the OP's idea, on a relatively larger scale. i think its 160 v. 160, and with capturing of objectives/killing of commanders, you gain bonuses (i.e. airstrikes, weapon caches etc.)

or large-scale Battlegrounds like in WoW


The teams would be most likely 4v4 with the regular AI that would be throughout the level. Some of the levels would be similar to what you are describing, but it would have a definite feeling that you are playing the campaign. Ya know, moving forward and helping to save/destroy Reach.

  • 07.16.2009 10:32 AM PDT

we have that. it's called custom games.

  • 07.16.2009 10:40 AM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: Death2BlueCheese
we have that. it's called custom games.


Wow, did you even read the post...the campaign is nothing like custom games. This would be playing the levels against other people.

  • 07.16.2009 10:43 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member

Sorry but PvP Campaign would be a terrible idea.

  • 07.16.2009 11:10 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Mythic Member

Proud frenchie, elite fan, anthro artist not hellbent on yiff convention/pics/whatever, mature and intelligent forum guy, 4chaner, halo 2 lover and halo 3 hater.

for the love of god, bungie is making their sp modes worse and worse... and shorter and shorter with each game.
don't give them such ideas. look at quake wars, unreal tournament, and most of mmofps... :/ there is no story. they just put some texts and pretend there's a story, but in reality it's just a skirmish with bots.

in that case, it'd just be a mp scenario where your player model is forced. better make it a mp playlist than spoiling the sp mode with this.

  • 07.16.2009 11:38 AM PDT

is awesome!

it reminds me of the levels Sacred icon and Quarantine zone, the Arbiter and Miranda were both in a epic race for the icon.

Well this game must be just fight, blood all that
you idea is great

[Edited on 07.16.2009 11:44 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2009 11:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I do not appreciate B.Net Group solicitation. If you ignore this and send me an invitation anyway, I will block communications with you.

Sounds like onslaught-type games, such as the likely-named game mode from Unreal Tournament '04.

Halo could use something like that, but I don't see it happening on the current generation of consoles unless they significantly dumb down the stress on the game engine to allow for large-scale warfare like that.

Firefight could lead into things like this, I believe, but it will likely be a very slow process until next-gen Microsoft arrives in 2015.

  • 07.16.2009 11:51 AM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: Dream053
Sounds like onslaught-type games, such as the likely-named game mode from Unreal Tournament '04.

Halo could use something like that, but I don't see it happening on the current generation of consoles unless they significantly dumb down the stress on the game engine to allow for large-scale warfare like that.

Firefight could lead into things like this, I believe, but it will likely be a very slow process until next-gen Microsoft arrives in 2015.


I don't think it is too much of a change from what we already have had in Halo 3. I am thinking of the two battles in Halo 3 with the Scarabs. Those were fairly large scale with many units and things happening. I never experienced an inkling of lag with 4 players in those big battles, I don't think expanding the battle and adding 4 more players is completely out of the question.

It is really just a major change in how the campaign is played, not in how large the campaign is.

  • 07.16.2009 12:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

how would that work the missions?? or if those who buy the game and no live? or that would mean like 6 diffrent endings

  • 07.16.2009 12:32 PM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: xxUFFxx
how would that work the missions?? or if those who buy the game and no live? or that would mean like 6 diffrent endings


1) The missions would work like any other campaign mission; except there would be 4 other players fighting against you.

2) If you don't have LIVE that is not a problem, the other spartans/elites would simply be controlled by AI. They would just be smarter/better than the regular AI.

3) In the end Reach the planet gets glassed and the Spartans lose. There is only one ending. The missions leading to the end of Reach could contain anything.


Additionally, this adds to the amount of replayability that the game has. In Halo 2 you play a level as the arbiter then one as MC over and over again. You really are fighting against each other, but at separate times. This type of campaign would lend itself to twice as many levels. Because it would have the same amount of levels as a normal campaign, but you could play them as both sides! Not to mention that MM would be awesome for this.

  • 07.16.2009 2:39 PM PDT

I could never see a campaign of this style working out.

The whole point of a campaign's difficulty is to challenge the player into trying to finish the game with the least deaths possible, pushing forward through level after level to reach the end of the game. This means that there is a little bit of leniency that allows for the player to have a slight, yet consistent advantage over the enemy without making it easy, otherwise it would end up with the player becoming constantly frustrated in failing often.

Which means that playing as a human would have to give you an edge, otherwise if your opponents end up dominating you in every regard, then there is no progress whatsoever, and the game sits at a standstill.

Now, if you're playing as the Covenant and the humans do have this advantage, you're going to end up dying a lot and not having much fun.

If both sides are balanced, then really, what's the point? It's just multiplayer with a new theme.

  • 07.16.2009 3:00 PM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: BattleRifle BR55
I could never see a campaign of this style working out.

The whole point of a campaign's difficulty is to challenge the player into trying to finish the game with the least deaths possible, pushing forward through level after level to reach the end of the game. This means that there is a little bit of leniency that allows for the player to have a slight, yet consistent advantage over the enemy without making it easy, otherwise it would end up with the player becoming constantly frustrated in failing often.

Which means that playing as a human would have to give you an edge, otherwise if your opponents end up dominating you in every regard, then there is no progress whatsoever, and the game sits at a standstill.

Now, if you're playing as the Covenant and the humans do have this advantage, you're going to end up dying a lot and not having much fun.

If both sides are balanced, then really, what's the point? It's just multiplayer with a new theme.


It is multiplayer with a completely new theme.

This style of campaign could still achieve everything you are talking about. Niether side would be given an edge, the only edge one would have is their skill level.

In case you haven't heard...;Reach falls. No matter what the Spartans accomplish for don't succeed in, in the end they lose. The missions would still move forward whether you lost or won that campaign level. But for that level the convenant may have destroyed that base, or the humans won a certain battle, or the humans activated a certain defense system, etc.

It really doesn't matter if the humans hold a certain base or the convenant destroy a ship, the comapaign will move forward. You simply won't get the acheivement for a certain level until you beat it.

I know that this is radical idea compaired to every campaign everyone has played since Contra. However, the more I think about it the more this seems like this would work very well.

  • 07.17.2009 7:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

We have multiplayer for that I want a good story and I dont thick your idea will make it esay for a good story and we need something for newbs to play and whan ware offline

  • 07.17.2009 8:17 AM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Posted by: Buzz Killingtin
We have multiplayer for that I want a good story and I dont thick your idea will make it esay for a good story and we need something for newbs to play and whan ware offline


This type of campaign would work online and off as your teammates would simply be AI. The story could flow just as easily PvP.

Campaing mode is simply a means of progressing the story, however, every level is basically the same idea; you are trying to get some place, activate some thing, destroy some equipment, etc. The levels would essentially still be the same, you would just be working against someone else.

  • 07.17.2009 1:05 PM PDT

Back in the day, Perfect Dark 64 had a "Counter-Operative" mode where it would be PVP. 1st player would assume the role of main character, while 2nd player would spawn from a random bot on that level. If 2nd player where to be killed he would re-spawn as another random bot elsewhere in the level.

  • 07.17.2009 1:44 PM PDT

Zerogreenchief is eh pretty cool guy, eh trolls people and doesn't afraid of anything.

There's a pc FPS already in production that has this same concept. A few players play as "the protagonists and are beastly powerful and everybody else is a essentially an NPC. Forget the name but the protagonists looked sort of like the Assasin's Creed guy.

  • 07.17.2009 1:54 PM PDT

Reach MMO. Here's to hoping.

And the people that believe "the hardcore playlists would be more popular if the rules were strictly MLG" can come off it, now. If you're not willing to support something close to your own setup, there's no reason for us to believe that cloning our own lists and stripping the variety down will attract more people. -- Shishka, Bungie.net

Those ideas are similar, but not exactly what I am talking about. It would basically be a squad of spartans vs. a squad of "elite" elites. No team would have the advantage.

And these would be actual campaign missions, not just mini missions or games.

  • 07.17.2009 2:25 PM PDT