Talk: Armor Lock

Merge (Closed)

Like I said on the page, why should this ability get its own page? It should be merged with the original page.

Support (7/3)

1. Support - Per my statement above. --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   00:46, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
2. Support - As per General. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 15:37, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
3. Support - As per General. Kronos101 17:39, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - As per General.--NoobSlayer757 04:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - Most of the oppositions ^{Not Jugus} display typical "What IF" comments. Remember, no proof/source, no article. Simple as that. If Armor Lock ability is activated using a "device", the "device" should have its own article and not the ability.{insert name here} 01:51, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - As per above.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 11:14, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - As per -Ascension-. -- Forerunner 19:50, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (13/2)

1. Oppose No. Once we get more information, it would make sense to have it's own page. Besides, it would get too jumbled with other infromation. --Chris-015 00:49, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

   But the other pages need pages as well, right? It wouldn't make sense for one ability to have its own page. It would be harder to navigate and more messy in its own sense.--  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   00:53, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

   This page could get a more detailed description (E.G Tactics, Trivia, ect) instead of cluttering the armour abilities page. MowatMan 12:50, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

   Take a look at this page. Does it look cluttered at all? No. And, as a bonus, it has a lot of detailed descriptions, with all the figures on one page, without the need of their own page. --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   15:53, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Equipment in Halo 3 get there own pages, so should armor abilities in Reach. - S.B.44 ^[T] 16:48, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

   The difference is, every Equipment there is in Halo 3 has its own page. Yet for the Armor Abilities, we would only have one page, for one ability out of a total of five. Additionally, most of the abilities would have pretty sad pages. Take the Sprint ability and put it in its own page. What do you put in there? --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   17:22, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Why shouldn't Armor Lock get it's own page? Consolidating all the armor abilities simply to make things easier to navigate is a slippery slope argument. For example, if that's the case then we should merge Active camouflage (it's own armor ability, by the way), over shield, and the other power-ups just to make things more easily navigable. Currently the jet pack has it's own page, but I don't see the same suggestion there as I do here; why are we holding Armor Lock to a different standard? No, it makes more sense to give armor abilities that warrant it their own pages, and Armor Lock is one of them. It clearly will have significant coverage in Halo: Reach and as such have an extremely reliable source for references we can base the article on; and clearly doesn't fit well in any of the What Halopedia is not categories, and the closest would be "Halopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, Armor Lock would have much more information available to be included in it than the example provided of Saturn. In addition, if the pages are merged I believe we'll find shortly after Reach is released that it will be more convenient to navigate if certain abilities have their own pages. Either way, we'll just have to wait and see. -- Lord Hyren 18:55, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

   A merge is being suggested because none of the other Armour Abilities have their own pages, and that there's not enough info as it is to denote its own page. And the jetpack article is about the jetpack itself, not the actual ability. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 19:16, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

   I realize that, but what if Armor Lock is something similar to the jet-pack in its background? For all we know on release-date there'll be a small paragraph explaining the origin of each ability is tantamount to the different subscripts for the armor permutations in Halo 3. -- Lord Hyren 04:17, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

   Armor Lock is an ability. It is most likely activated by some contraption within the MJOLNIR armour. With that said, we should have an article about that contraption instead of the armour ability. That is what General5_7 is trying to convey. That is also why the Jetpack is awarded its own article because it is about the device that provides the ability, not the ability itself.{insert name here} 01:41, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I thought about being neutral, but then again, why vote at all if I did that. Now the reason for opposing is that while General's argument makes perfect sense - no other abilities have their own pages - this one has potential for growth. I'm with Lord Hyren here; I'd rather wait and see if we get more of both in-game and in-universe information on the ability. Much like the Jetpack, this one seems like it could have an in-universe backstory rather than just being something randomly thrown in there. Plus, the same could be said of the other abilities. Right now, there isn't enough info of, for example, Sprint, to warrant its own article, but I believe that's only because we know next to nothing about it - yet. Take, for example, Regenerator or Radar Jammer. Before anyone had played Halo 3, what could be said of those? Not much more than of this one. I believe we should have pages for each ability - once there's enough information of them for that. And I think that information starts showing up soon enough, with the Beta. Even though it may have been a little early to create the article this early on, I'd still keep it, simply so that we don't need to make a new one once the Abilities main page gets all cluttered with an intricate backstory for each ability, coupled with lots of strategy and tactics information and random trivia, like development history. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

   The issue is to consider what "device" that provides these abilities. The reason why Halo 3's Equipment is given their own individual pages is because of the devices themselves, not the effect of the activation of the devices. That is why the Jetpack is awarded its own article (and it merely mentions what ability it provides in its trivia).{insert name here} 01:41, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

   Well, Armor Lock seems to have a some kind of device that projects the shield, in form of a backpack of some kind (probably an extra shield generator), as seen on the Multiplayer trailer when a Spartan engages the lock.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:18, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

   But one has to question; what device? I'm presuming it would be like the ones we see in Halo 3's Starry Night trailer (Mini-Bubble Shield). If the article describes more of the ability instead of the device, it should be merge. If it were otherwise, I think it deserves its own article.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 11:24, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

   The question is, why does the device itself warrant a page but not the ability? What is the logic behind that? Pretty much all of the equipment pages do not describe the fictional backstory or properties of the piece of equipment in question, they actually detail its gameplay properties. I fail to see how the Armor Abilities are any different in that regard. We have two-sentence pages about obscure items in the fiction (I'm not against that, just noting), yet we couldn't have a much larger page about an Ability just because it's unclear what kind of device generates it. Once the beta hits, I'm sure we'll get tons of strategy tips and the like for each ability, much like what we have for Equipment. That is why I believe we should have a page for each of them.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 06:37, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

   Two answers to the question:

   Because Armor Lock has been categorised as an Armor Ability, just like how the 88005-MX77 drug has been categorised as a drug in Project CHRYSANTHEMUM. They should be merged and expanded/summarised in their categorised articles. The same will be applied to simple, one-time only multiplayer medal articles (i.e. Blades of Fury, Pull!), though unique multiplayer medals such as Double Kill and Triple Kill will remain as independent articles (not really relevant to the discussion, but just pointing out a future cleanup project

   Because it would attract more abuse than improvements. The Halo Nations are composed mostly of hardcore multiplayer fanatics whom could produce almost any ridiculous tactics and strategies in using an armor ability. Halopedia is not entirely about multiplayer tactics; the wiki is supposed to present facts and plausible hints/tips/tactics. The problem with Halopedia and its multiplayer articles is that most of the hints and tips are not actual facts and some can never be replicate-able to the common players. Sure, we could accept the most simplistic form of tactics (such example is how to obtain the Sandbox skull) and strategies but the complex and extended ones should be managed by HaloWiki.net (in said example, that would be ForgeHub).

   With the Beta now released to the general public, the only strategies I learned from watching others using Armor Lock are (1) When near to death, deploy it. (2) When being attacked which most likely result in immanent death (Rocket Launcher, etc), deploy it and try to avoid players assassinate/snipe/stick you. (3) It is not an offensive ability and should only be used as a defensive ability. All of these strategies/tips can be added to the Armor Lock sub-section in the Armor Abilities article. - 5əb'7aŋk^{(Σάπτανκ)} 15:58, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose - All the Halo 3 equipment get pages. This one should get a page too.EchostreamFanJosh

   No.{insert name here} 01:41, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose As per EchostreamFanJosh --Staff Sergeant Darrell Mac, UNSC Air Force 05:37, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose - As stated before previous equipment has all gained its own page. When more information on the abilities comes to light it will be more prevalent to have pages for all the Armor Abilities, specifically this ability and the Jet Pack ability.--Kahn Iceay 22:13, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose - There are many articles that are just as needed to be merged with another page but they are left lying. SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

1. Oppose - If you merge it with the main armor abilities page, it will get too crowded. I think we should wait at least until the halo reach beta comes out, when more information is given to the halo community. TickToXsiK 20:35, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

   How are they getting crowded? If this were to be its own article, it will be attracting more abuse than improvements.- 5əb'7aŋk^{(Σάπτανκ)} 15:58, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose - There armor abilities are not just a minor little thing, they are an actual factor into Reach gameplay. As they are so significant to the multiplayer now, it makes sense to leave them separated. BLADEBANE Anti-Vandal 09:52, May 4, 2010 (UTC)Blade bane

   The argument is that Armor Lock is an ability and that that ability should remain with the Armor Abilities article; the "Equipment" that provides the ability should have its own article, just like the Jetpack (Which is unidentified). The question is what "Equipment" that provides that ability?- 5əb'7aŋk^{(Σάπτανκ)} 15:58, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I feel this article should not be merged, because all Halo 3 equipment have a page, as EchostreamFanJosh said. Also, if it were to be merged, it would be left as a couple sentences on the Armor abilities page, which does not give the reader sufficient information. To be honest, I'm partial to this page, as Armor Lock is my favorite armor ability (:D) and I tried to make an advantages/disadvantages section, but I guess it wasn't felt to be important. But this page is still informative, and I say that it's a valuable asset to Halopedia. Sorry to seem a bit better :\ -Chibidude

   The Armor Abilities can be expanded with each section/sub-section dedicated to the armor abilities. Case in point; focus on quality than quantity.- 5əb'7aŋk^{(Σάπτανκ)} 15:58, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

   Subtank stop trying to merge articles that are not even complete yet and you don't have any sufficient evidence. SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

1. How about "stop making articles that are not even complete yet"? ;) - 5əb'7aŋk^{(Σάπτανκ)} 17:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

   Or "stop trying to merge articles that need more information that has to stay as an article"? ;-) SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

1. Oppose - No, no, this is getting ridiculous. Absolutely not. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose - After reading the votes and responses and taking some time to think about it, I've decided to oppose. The truth of the matter is, that this is a different situation than all the other armor abilities. Basically repeating what Jugus and Lord Hyren have stated, this article is a potential for expanding. While I agree that virtually all the other Reach armor abilities are rather small for their own article, this one, in my opinion, has a few big differences. As messy as it currently looks, it is nowhere near as small as other abilities such as the simple "Active Camo". As I look at the article, I see a fair amount of info as it is; there's no reason that it cannot evolve further given time for more information released. This also goes for all of the Reach abilities. To simplify my statement: wait longer for more facts/info/etc on it. If we conclude that it doesn't need its own article, merge it. If not, don't merge. But for the time being, as we already have the article, leave it as is. Better to kill two birds with one stone instead of performing the same action twice. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 19:03, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose - as per EchostreamFanJosh 76.211.2.221 01:27, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Suggest even changing the name to "Armor Lock" until its actual name is known. ---Dark Scion 16:42, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Duration

How long does Armour Lock lasts? --Nup^(T) 03:30, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

If fully activated, about good five (5) seconds. Keep in mind that you can activate sparingly.Sketch^ist 03:44, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nup^(T) 03:45, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Developed by the UNSC?

Well, on the page it states that it was made by the UNSC, but there is no citation and in the campaign demo, an Elite uses it (When it punches it's fist into the ground and it's energy shields turn red). Where'd the information about the UNSC making it come from? LiLLiPaDDy ~True tears are never seen, only hidden~ 10:11, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

The device has "UNSC" printed on it. If that's not enough, it obviously isn't Covenant in design. The Covenant device in the campaign may have a different model. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

On the stats pages on Bungie.net, if you check your "weapons of destruction" list, the description of Armor Lock reads as following: "Pretty effective even in this early prototype stage. Its guts are nearly identical to the Covey gear that spawned it." This implies that, just like the Spartan shielding system, Armor Lock was created by reverse engineering Covenant tech.ChromaticXblue 05:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Name and article subject

Now that we know that Elites can Armor Lock as well, I think the article should be changed to describe the Armor Lock technology/effect in general, instead of just one piece of equipment, in a manner similar to Active camouflage. The article would describe the effect itself and its in-game function, the UNSC piece of equipment, as well as the Covenant equivalent once we get enough information of it. And in my opinion, this article should be called "Armor Lock", because I find it odd we call it "unnamed" even when we have a perfectly fine name for it. True, it's probably not the official name of the equipment, but it's name nonetheless and it's better than the current one. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:44, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

It was agreed on IRC that "armor lockdown" was an ability that the device allowed, not the device's name itself. It was also moved here because some people argued that sprinting should be an article because Armor lock was. You should ask on IRC for the veteran community's views before starting another move request.-- Forerunner 18:59, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should. But then again, I've been avoiding it because I thought that's what talk pages were for and one never knows when the others are active at the IRC. I stress that I didn't request this be changed to describe the in-game ability; even I know that it was decided long ago. But like I said, "Active Camo" has an article that describes the technology, not one piece of equipment that enables it. Thought it'd make sense for this to be a similar case, seeing as the Covenant use the same kind of tech which was probably the basis for the UNSC one as well. Besides, articles like Electromagnetic pulse describe the effect, not the cause.

More about the IRC, the other reason I've been avoiding it is because I believe everyone should be able to see the discussion that led to the changes, at any time. Confusion like this wouldn't occur if people just discussed it on the talk pages and not their little off-site "clique". --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 19:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. We don't know what the equipment is - is it a single device attached internally? All we know about it is that all SpecOps are able to activate it within their armour along with some non-specops. The title of this page seems well enough - if the UNSC and Covenant use the same mechanism, we can always split up the page and say that they both use it.-- Forerunner 19:29, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll let it go - for now. We'll see when Reach comes out. Still, just for the sake of argument, pieces of equipment like Invincibility or Bubble Shield are obviously named after the effect and not the device that produces it. Even when the in-game Armor Ability itself doesn't need a page, having the page be about the effect is still a better idea for me than some obscure device whose specifications, or even name, we have no idea of. I mean, most of the information on this page is about armor locking. With the same logic as applied here, we should call Energy Shields "Unnamed shield emitter system" or something like that. Well, maybe not. Just trying to demonstrate what I mean here. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 16:25, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think you can apply the whole "splitting it up". However, this article is special and could be exempted from that logic because we actually see the device that generates the ability (the UNSC attachment and Covenant attachment generate Armor Lock), whereas energy shields emitted by the MJOLNIR and the Covenant Harness are nowhere to be seen (as in the devices that generates the energy shield. The energy shield is the primary form of protection whereas the armour is acting as secondary protection when the energy shield fails. The armour only acts as a shell that hosts multiple components that makes it special than a regular armour). Just voicing out what I think, hopefully clearing out the confusion. - Sketch^ist 16:33, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize that an external attachment and an armor-integrated shielding system are two different things; I may have been over-simplifying with that example. Like I said, let's just keep it this way for now, until we have more information. Still, we could have a page called "Armor Lock" that makes it clear that it's not only about the gameplay ability but describes the technology, both human and Covenant, in a manner similar to Active camouflage or Energy Shields. It would be pointless to have separate articles for the Covenant and UNSC devices when the differences are purely cosmetic in nature. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:11, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Similarities?

I was playing the first Halo and noticed that there is a similar looking device on the back of the Mark V in the game. I am not suggesting they are the same, but maybe it's just a modified part? Just bringing it up to see what you guys think. XRoadToDawnX 21:55, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Cooldown/Effect Length

I timed these myself, not sure how to cite that. Dab1998 (talk) 16:01, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to put an exact time anyway because it's different depending on gametype. -- Vektor0 (reply) 14:26, April 14, 2014 (UTC)