Problem: One of the issues I have found with Halo is how aircraft are balanced. Aircraft are always flying in tight spaces, often under direct small arms fire, and do not have room to perform wide maneuvers. Flying is almost claustrophobic and pilots often have to resort to hiding their aircraft by flying into the side of a cliff and “hovering” behind it to let their shields regenerate. This makes flying uncomfortable and difficult. Pilots are also at such a close range that small arms fire from automatic rifles, handguns, and even shotguns can cause severe damage to their aircraft. Once an aircraft leaves its hovering spot it is almost immediately under fire as it is a high value target, and is in range of almost all hostile infantry on the field, yet has the firepower to only engage one or two at a time.
Solution:
The proposed solution is divided into multiple different points to ensure that each change is counterbalanced to ensure fairness in the game.
I propose that aircraft are given larger areas from which to fight. Their boundaries need to be increased, so that aircraft can have room to operate. Maps can have boundaries built in that permit aircraft to pass without receiving a soft kill timer, but prevent dismounted pilots. Pilots would not be able to leave their aircraft, or use it as a means to get to inaccessible portions of the map. Aircraft need increased altitude limits so they can fly up to avoid attack (common real life tactic), and increase length and width boundaries.
Aircraft effective weapon ranges need to be increased, to allow them to engage infantry without being in the range of small arms fire. Aircraft receiving damage from small arms fire is unrealistic and boring. Aircraft will often turn to fire upon infantry, and be so damaged by infantry weapons that they become not serviceable and have to be abandoned. Bottom line being infantry should not be able to damage aircraft without special equipment.
If aircraft could engage ground targets outside of their weapon ranges, infantry would require equipment to engage aircraft. This in part would be handled by infantry heavy weapons (Railguns, Rocket Launchers, etc) but a permanent fix would be required. This would be remedied with the addition of a UNSC or Covenant SPAAG or SPAAR vehicles into the Halo sandbox. These stand for “Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Gun/Railgun”.
UNSC SPAAG/SPAAR:
Armament: This vehicle would require a mid-high caliber gun or Railgun that would be able to successfully engage air targets from the ground. It would have a rate of fire around 1 round per second or slightly greater. The rounds would do moderate damage against an air target and could proximity detonate depending on what firing mode the operator chooses. Around 15 rounds in proximity mode would be enough to destroy a Banshee. 7 hits in Direct fire mode would kill. Proximity rounds would allow an operator to deal with a target from range, and direct fire would be used to deal with close range targets. The weapon would be magazine fed, having a magazine of 6 rounds before having to reload. The weapon would also have slightly less than satisfying effectiveness against armor, and decent effectiveness against infantry. It would also mount a single SAM missile alongside the main gun. After firing the launcher would recede into the chassis of the vehicle through a slot and would exit loaded with another missile. This would happen much in the fashion of the Raketenjagdpanzer 2 HOT.
Chassis: The UNSC vehicle would be a 4 wheeled scout car much like the Daimler Ferret except mounting the armaments on the rear of the chassis behind the driver’s compartment. The wheels would be extended out further to give more of a spider like profile. It would only have space for a driver, and would not have any passengers. The vehicle would not have much health, and could be destroyed easily with heavy weapons. It would have health comparable to the Mongoose. It would have speed only a little less than the Mongoose owing to its greater armaments.
Playstyle: Since it is an anti aircraft vehicle it would be able to deal with them a long ranges. Against ground foes, it must operate a shoot and scoot play style, having to relocate to prevent it from being destroyed. It would have a mean bite, but kick it enough and it won’t last very long.
Covenant AA Vehicle:
This role is already filled with the AA wraith. so I won’t make anything for it. If this topic progresses further then I will make one.
I think you’ll like this idea of mine: the Mosquito.
A variant of the Wasp, the Mosquito maintains the former’s firepower but swaps out energy shielding for an Active Camo generator. Its smaller size and skeletal construction make it much harder to hit. Ideal for stealth hit-and-runs and reconnaissance.
How are you supposed to take down aircraft when only rocket launchers and railguns are capable of doing it? That would even more boring, in my opinion, due to a lack of options. This isn’t CoD, where everyone can have a rocket launcher or railgun whenever they feel like it. Also, this is the future. Weapons are very powerful. I’m sure taking down aircraft with small arms fire is a lot more realistic when those small arms are that powerful.
Aircraft could still be taken down easily by weapons fire from vehicles, stationary MG emplacements, and marksmen weapons. The argument I’m making is so that ARs, Pistols, Storm Rifles, SMGs, Shotguns, ect are not able to engage aircraft. Aircraft should be much harder to kill than they are. Infantry should not be able to easily engage aircraft with stock equipment. An air asset should be more powerful than what we have in Halo so far. I’m proposing a rebalance that would allow aircraft greater engagement distances to make them as valuable as the should be. Dumb and inexperienced pilots will still engage at close ranges, so this rebalance would only truly affect intelligent pilots who try to preserve their aircraft.
Also firearms in Halo are often below par with their modern counterparts. The AR is horrible inaccurate compared to modern firearms. Same with the SAW. The shotgun’s range is incredibly limited compared to its modern counterpart. Some Halo weapons cannot hold a candle to their modern counterparts regardless of technological advancements. I would rather take an M1 Garand for mid range work as opposed to an MA5B for the sole reason that it’s incredibly more accurate.
> Aircraft receiving damage from small arms fire is unrealistic and boring.
Unrealistic? To an extent, sure.
Boring? I’m going to disagree there.
You know what else is boring? Getting stomped on by an enemy Banshee pilot because literally everything that I spawn with does jack -Yoink- and I have to hope that a weapon that does damage is available for me to pick up and I can get there without getting destroyed by said pilot.
> 2533274880015812;5:
> Also firearms in Halo are often below par with their modern counterparts. The AR is horrible inaccurate compared to modern firearms. Same with the SAW. The shotgun’s range is incredibly limited compared to its modern counterpart. Some Halo weapons cannot hold a candle to their modern counterparts regardless of technological advancements. I would rather take an M1 Garand for mid range work as opposed to an MA5B for the sole reason that it’s incredibly more accurate.
I feel that the main thing that you are missing here is that gameplay =/= canon.
The MA5B is terrible at long range for the sake of gameplay balance. If there was a fully automatic weapon available on spawn that was near pinpoint accurate, I imagine many people would find the game incredibly dull and would just pass on the game.
The same would apply for pretty much everything else that we can use in the Halo games.
> Aircraft receiving damage from small arms fire is unrealistic and boring.
Not entirely true. Up until the Vietnam war fast jets were being lost to accurate small arms fire and it is still a consideration made by pilots conducting CAS missions, while up till present times in Iraq and Afghanistan, helicopters were severely damaged and in some cases a right off once they returned to base from small arms. Plus from personal experience I can say it is damn scary anyway. So it makes sense that small arms damages aircraft.
> 2533274880015812;1:
> Greetings folks!
>
> Problem: One of the issues I have found with Halo is how aircraft are balanced. Aircraft are always flying in tight spaces, often under direct small arms fire, and do not have room to perform wide maneuvers. Flying is almost claustrophobic and pilots often have to resort to hiding their aircraft by flying into the side of a cliff and “hovering” behind it to let their shields regenerate. This makes flying uncomfortable and difficult. Pilots are also at such a close range that small arms fire from automatic rifles, handguns, and even shotguns can cause severe damage to their aircraft. Once an aircraft leaves its hovering spot it is almost immediately under fire as it is a high value target, and is in range of almost all hostile infantry on the field, yet has the firepower to only engage one or two at a time.
>
> Solution: The proposed solution is divided into multiple different points to ensure that each change is counterbalanced to ensure fairness in the game.
>
> 1. I propose that aircraft are given larger areas from which to fight. Their boundaries need to be increased, so that aircraft can have room to operate. Maps can have boundaries built in that permit aircraft to pass without receiving a soft kill timer, but prevent dismounted pilots. Pilots would not be able to leave their aircraft, or use it as a means to get to inaccessible portions of the map. Aircraft need increased altitude limits so they can fly up to avoid attack (common real life tactic), and increase length and width boundaries.
>
> 2. Aircraft effective weapon ranges need to be increased, to allow them to engage infantry without being in the range of small arms fire. Aircraft receiving damage from small arms fire is unrealistic and boring. Aircraft will often turn to fire upon infantry, and be so damaged by infantry weapons that they become not serviceable and have to be abandoned. Bottom line being infantry should not be able to damage aircraft without special equipment.
>
> 3. If aircraft could engage ground targets outside of their weapon ranges, infantry would require equipment to engage aircraft. This in part would be handled by infantry heavy weapons (Railguns, Rocket Launchers, etc) but a permanent fix would be required. This would be remedied with the addition of a UNSC or Covenant SPAAG or SPAAR vehicles into the Halo sandbox. These stand for “Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Gun/Railgun”.
>
> UNSC SPAAG/SPAAR:
> Armament: This vehicle would require a mid-high caliber gun or Railgun that would be able to successfully engage air targets from the ground. It would have a rate of fire around 1 round per second or slightly greater. The rounds would do moderate damage against an air target and could proximity detonate depending on what firing mode the operator chooses. Around 15 rounds in proximity mode would be enough to destroy a Banshee. 7 hits in Direct fire mode would kill. Proximity rounds would allow an operator to deal with a target from range, and direct fire would be used to deal with close range targets. The weapon would be magazine fed, having a magazine of 6 rounds before having to reload. The weapon would also have slightly less than satisfying effectiveness against armor, and decent effectiveness against infantry. It would also mount a single SAM missile alongside the main gun. After firing the launcher would recede into the chassis of the vehicle through a slot and would exit loaded with another missile. This would happen much in the fashion of the Raketenjagdpanzer 2 HOT.
>
> Chassis: The UNSC vehicle would be a 4 wheeled scout car much like the Daimler Ferret except mounting the armaments on the rear of the chassis behind the driver’s compartment. The wheels would be extended out further to give more of a spider like profile. It would only have space for a driver, and would not have any passengers. The vehicle would not have much health, and could be destroyed easily with heavy weapons. It would have health comparable to the Mongoose. It would have speed only a little less than the Mongoose owing to its greater armaments.
>
> Playstyle: Since it is an anti aircraft vehicle it would be able to deal with them a long ranges. Against ground foes, it must operate a shoot and scoot play style, having to relocate to prevent it from being destroyed. It would have a mean bite, but kick it enough and it won’t last very long.
>
> Covenant AA Vehicle:
> This role is already filled with the AA wraith. so I won’t make anything for it. If this topic progresses further then I will make one.
>
> Thanks guys. I hope you enjoy!
> Stamper
As for UNSC AAA, in game the hog armed variants fill a decent middle ground. Anything heavier can be either the Sundevil or the Wolverine from the lore. It can work similar to how you said
-I’ve been an advocate for Projectile bullets for long while and one of the reasons for that is to limit small arms fire accuracy versus vehicles.
-Another option would be to have weak spots, like the engines and cockpit, hitting anywhere else doing minimal/ negigable damage. So it takes a bit more accuracy to take the vehicle down. Having such a large hit box has really hindered vehicle gameplay in the past.
-Could have a critical damage phase where you loose control of the vehicle just like an emp, the vehicle crashes then explodes but there is time to eject. One of the big problems with vehicle combat that in the final damage phases of a vehicle you are basically sitting on a bomb.
Those would be my suggestions. I actually disagree with air vehicles shifting towards ranged combat, I think vehicles should be in the mix/ in the fray so to speak, to create interplay and counterplay options like boarding and sticking with plasma grenades. Though soft kill barriers can die in a fire. Cliffs and soft invisible barriers should do the trick, maybe some Halo 3esc environmental hazards like an emp dome shield or auto defence turrets like snowbound. But no soft kills! Errrrrrr.
I agree with everything @BanoffeeBot said.
There’s already a bit of a power inbalance with any side that has air superiority. I think if anything was done to make aircraft more invulnerable, it could tip that even further. Probably even to the point where it breaks the game and it becomes a rush towards who can have the most Wasps and Banshees instead of trying to control certain points on the map.
Hmm, I see your points.
I agree with the idea to give aircraft a critical damage phase. Possibly engineer it in a way that its not simply like an almost scripted thing (as soon as you pass the damage threshold your vehicle looses control), but progressive. Aircraft with little damage might have lesser handling capabilities and would be harder to control, an aircraft with moderate damage might not be able to handle the average maneuver as well as it should. Control surfaces could be hit on an aircraft leading to further inability to be controlled. With severe damage the aircraft will be very hard to control, may experience partial power loss, or complete engine failure. When the aircraft engines fail the vehicle will lose power and if its a Banshee, glide to the ground, or a Wasp, drop like a sack of potatoes. The vehicle may explode on collision with the ground. If the vehicle receives a severe amount of damage passing a certain threshold (hit by a Spartan Laser for example) it would actually explode, but withering damage over time would cause the engine failure and crash landing.
Bottom Line:
If the vehicle is withered to destruction, it will lose power and crash land, possibly exploding when hitting the ground. The pilot may survive.
If the vehicle receives a massive amount of damage past a certain threshold, it will detonate in mid air, killing the pilot.
> 2533274797849057;8:
> -I’ve been an advocate for Projectile bullets for long while and one of the reasons for that is to limit small arms fire accuracy versus vehicles.
> -Another option would be to have weak spots, like the engines and cockpit, hitting anywhere else doing minimal/ negigable damage. So it takes a bit more accuracy to take the vehicle down. Having such a large hit box has really hindered vehicle gameplay in the past.
> -Could have a critical damage phase where you loose control of the vehicle just like an emp, the vehicle crashes then explodes but there is time to eject. One of the big problems with vehicle combat that in the final damage phases of a vehicle you are basically sitting on a bomb.
>
> Those would be my suggestions. I actually disagree with air vehicles shifting towards ranged combat, I think vehicles should be in the mix/ in the fray so to speak, to create interplay and counterplay options like boarding and sticking with plasma grenades. Though soft kill barriers can die in a fire. Cliffs and soft invisible barriers should do the trick, maybe some Halo 3esc environmental hazards like an emp dome shield or auto defence turrets like snowbound. But no soft kills! Errrrrrr.
I agree with the weak spots portion, but only for certain weapons. Weapons with high penetrating power would be able to cause significant damage anywhere on the vehicle, and increased damage at the weak spots. Small arms fire would cause negligible damage on most of the aircraft, but normal damage at the weak spots.
> 2533274880015812;1:
> 1. I propose that aircraft are given larger areas from which to fight. Their boundaries need to be increased, so that aircraft can have room to operate.
>
> 2. Aircraft effective weapon ranges need to be increased, to allow them to engage infantry without being in the range of small arms fire.
>
> 3. If aircraft could engage ground targets outside of their weapon ranges, infantry would require equipment to engage aircraft. This in part would be handled by infantry heavy weapons (Railguns, Rocket Launchers, etc) but a permanent fix would be required.
1) That’s the only thing I agree with. It would be nice to have more of an air-to-air battle aspect in the game. The only requirement would be to have the weapons have the same range or make them nullified after a certain distance from the air to the ground assuming it’s out very far or high up. 343 could add a visual reference when players are in this area like light cloud barrier or a small indicator on the screen for example.
2) And then reality happens when one team just camps in those zones and reigns down fire for the entire game untouched. I don’t think you’re also accounting for playlists like BTB where power weapons are limited and on timers. If the map barriers were extended and the air vehicles were out of range of the default weapons, they would be very OP.
3) That would just make unevenly skilled games even worse and it goes back to my second point. If one team is stuck with low REQ’s or can’t get to a power weapon in BTB, they would never even have a chance to take out an air vehicle.
I totally get what you’re saying… As someone who plays Warzone Firefight, every enemy seems to absolutely destroy my vehicles whenever I get close, and I think that’s a little difficult to deal with. Of course, it’s a little bit different with players. Players aren’t nearly as good as Prometheans at hitting your aircraft from rediculous ranges, NOR dumping tons of damage from small arms into you at cqc. But I do feel outranged, even by basic weapons by ridiculous covenant and prometheans, which isn’t something I have to deal with when fighting regular players.
However, strategically, I think speed is also an important component of using an aircraft, when in PVP or PVE. I’ve always used them to hit and run, be it a banshee, or a wasp, and that’s usually how it works in real life as well, even with helicopters that can maintain their position, it’s always best to be on the move. While players, or covenant are distracted, it’s good to catch them off-guard with a gun run before pulling away to do another pass. Granted, in PVE, this strategy is hardly affective without the firepower of an Ultra Banshee or Hannibal Wasp, but you will at least survive the encounter if the enemy isn’t prepared, but a regular banshee should be sufficient if you surprise a group or vehicle that is busy with some other threat
In short, Air Vehicle combat varies between PVP and PVE situations.
> 2535429593088083;2:
> I think you’ll like this idea of mine: the Mosquito.
>
> A variant of the Wasp, the Mosquito maintains the former’s firepower but swaps out energy shielding for an Active Camo generator. Its smaller size and skeletal construction make it much harder to hit. Ideal for stealth hit-and-runs and reconnaissance.
Love everything about it except the name lol. Idk if I heard someone say “look out they’ve got a mosquito” I would burst out laughing.
> 2533274932512744;15:
> > 2535429593088083;2:
> > I think you’ll like this idea of mine: the Mosquito.
> >
> > A variant of the Wasp, the Mosquito maintains the former’s firepower but swaps out energy shielding for an Active Camo generator. Its smaller size and skeletal construction make it much harder to hit. Ideal for stealth hit-and-runs and reconnaissance.
>
> Love everything about it except the name lol. Idk if I heard someone say “look out they’ve got a mosquito” I would burst out laughing.
Think about it; actual mosquitoes are difficult to see but sting like a total @$!&%@^, right?
> 2535429593088083;17:
> > 2533274907200114;14:
> > Give us Pelicans already. And maps large enough that we need em.
>
> Hey, maybe even throw in the Pelican Gunship if possible!
That would be glorious and I can already imagine the teamkilling to pilot it.