{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/23/2014 9:51:37 PM
3
No voting for strikes or maps? I LOVE THAT. Ever play a game where you DID? Literally it'd only be 1 or 2 maps that got played.
English
-
It wouldn't be so bad if it gave you an option of 2 random strikes, not all of them. At least that way you wouldn't have to do the same one 5 times in a row and it wouldn't always be the same 2-3 that got picked. There's a proper way to implement things like this and there's a wrong way. Allowing a vote on all the strikes instead of a couple randomly selected ones would be the wrong way.
-
Mmm nahh
-
can't even make a proper response can you? You know it's true. I liked the random maps in halo 3, not so much in Reach. In Reach it was always hemorrhage this, hemorrhage that. Sword base was never picked over asylum, and asylum was never picked over the cage. In invasion, there wasn't even a point in having invasion skirmish as literally no one voted for it. Voting means there might as well be only 1 map.
