I wanted to make a thread for anyone who isn’t ready to let the idea of a Falcon in Halo 5 fade away just yet. For myself and I suspect a few others out there in the community, the MOR update isn’t quite complete. There’s more content coming and, though I’d have to say there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to promote the idea that it could be included, sometimes a sliver of a chance is good enough. Anyways, I’m curious to know if there’s still a significant population of Falcon supports among the comminity as that’s what ought to influence content. For the most part we know the case for the Falcon; it would need plenty of armor, a pilot operable gun, no other air vehicle fits the same bill, split field fields of fire and indispensable teamwork set it up for a mainstay in warzone, the simple fact that it transports three players, an ONI variant circa Reach campaign with dual GLS. I still get fired up when I think about what it could be in warzone firefight for add control, strategic movement and in the case of a high req variant: epic three man hail Mary plays. Is anyone with me?
Stop hoping for the best, you will be disappointed.
Although there is more content to come, 343/MS are already focusiing on Halo wars 2 and what is coming in halo 5 will be the same quality that what we got
I grant you the Bard did say, “Expectation is the root of all heartache” however, I would encourage you to reread the title and understand that’s not the theme of this thread. The theme of this thread is hope which stands diametrically opposed to the abject negativity you’ve chosen to espouse here. I will not stop hoping. And I will certainly not resign hope owing to a lack of faith in 343i. These forums are rife with criticisms and to be sure some aren’t entirely baseless but that doesn’t mean there should be a disproportionate focus on the negatives. I like Halo 5 and I won’t stop playing if we don’t get the Falcon because it’s a fantastic game. It’s remarkable that the game is still evolving over a year later and I’ll celebrate that by remaining optimistic about the Falcon.
I will not refute your own opinion in the slightest. The Falcon is an iconic air vehicle, and most team-based vehicles can do a LOT of damage. 2 door gunners + the pilot shooting as well can rack up some serious killing sprees. Not to mention the possibilities of having additional weaponry to the existing platform (ONI, Hannibal, etc) would make this a terrifying flying chariot in both Warzone and BTB.
Then again, I do see some things that may not be so lenient. It would be a huge aerial target outside of the Phaeton, it has no shielding (yet), it cannot dodge quickly, and the speed isn’t exactly the best. Plasma Pistols would be a huge pain, Rockets and Railguns would bombard you relentlessly, and Lasers would turn this thing into confetti. The Hornet and Wasp would outrun a Falcon on any occasion, let alone Banshees and Phaetons. The door gunners would be easy targets for snipers, followed by the pilot should the cockpit canopy shatter after sustaining enough damage.
…but like I said, I will not refute your opinion in the slightest. I haven’t been on a Falcon ever (I never played Halo Reach), and I’ll give one a shot if the situation is deemed necessary.
> 2535429593088083;4:
> I will not refute your own opinion in the slightest. The Falcon is an iconic air vehicle, and most team-based vehicles can do a LOT of damage. 2 door gunners + the pilot shooting as well can rack up some serious killing sprees. Not to mention the possibilities of having additional weaponry to the existing platform (ONI, Hannibal, etc) would make this a terrifying flying chariot.
>
> Then again, I do see some things that may not be so lenient. It would be a huge aerial target outside of the Phaeton, it has no shielding (yet), it cannot dodge quickly, and the speed isn’t exactly the best. Plasma Pistols would be a huge pain, Rockets and Railguns would bombard you relentlessly, and Lasers would turn this thing into confetti. The Hornet and Wasp would outrun a Falcon on any occasion, let alone Banshees and Phaetons. The door gunners would be easy targets for snipers, followed by the pilot should the cockpit canopy shatter after sustaining enough damage.
>
> …but like I said, I will not refute your opinion in the slightest. I haven’t been on a Falcon ever (I never played Halo Reach), and I’ll give one a shot if the situation is deemed necessary.
Thanks, I appreciate your input. I’m fairly certain the challenges you’ve detailed are the very reason it wasn’t added. Summarily, it would be difficult to balance not just by a radar graph of traits but in its very concept. The challenge is to garner some reverence for a slow moving triple kill. It would need improved armor and damage output to compensate for its slow speed and with that a higher req level (an ONI, Hannibal variant would be RL9 for sure) but it’s not quite that simple. Enough armor to make it viable against repeated and easily delivered AA attacks from power weapons would make for a flying juggernaut a low enough kill time to ward off splasers would be way to quick. The solution I propose is a temporary shield or lock down that can take a power weapon hit and dramatically decrease the amount of damage sustained at the cost of compromising offensive capability (activated by the pilot or by a gunner for an individual strong sides) with a limited use per time element. This affords the opportunity to relocate with some damage taken and re-evaluate. It also makes for a persistent and dynamic target with important subtarget regions. Example: Gunner 1 IDs a laser charging or inbound rocket and can lock down his/her side of the Falcon and ask the pilot to lose altitude for cover with Gunner 2 covering the retreat. I really wish we could get 343 to weight in as I’m exceedingly curious what the officials think about the Falcon in general. What do you think of this idea?
The idea of your shielding system is an interesting idea, but then the control schemes would become too complicated for the average player. Then again, the technology of 2559 compared to 2552 would’ve resulted in a vastly improved version of the Falcon.
In fact, I can already see a Falcon equipped with energy shielding (at least stronger than the Wasp) and missile pods underneath the wings. Not to mention the different turrets that can be mounted on the doors - can you even imagine a Falcon with two Guass turrets?!
> 2535429593088083;6:
> The idea of your shielding system is an interesting idea, but then the control schemes would become too complicated for the average player. Then again, the technology of 2559 compared to 2552 would’ve resulted in a vastly improved version of the Falcon.
>
> In fact, I can already see a Falcon equipped with energy shielding (at least stronger than the Wasp) and missile pods underneath the wings. Not to mention the different turrets that can be mounted on the doors - can you even imagine a Falcon with two Guass turrets?!
On that I’d say it couldn’t be a cut and paste unit especially with respect to the door gunners. They’d need some more cover because the lock down system won’t protect against a competent sniper (at some point the thing could become to defense heavy again). I think the 7 year development cycle actually covers a lot of bases not only in canon but also for those who would prefer a conceptually brand new vehicle over an old vehicle with meta level refreshes. I think a new Falcon not only grants liberties to the developer to make a vehicle that meshes well with MP but also gets the community exited. Now I’m very interested in the idea of trading out the pilots nose gun on a higher variant for some under wind rockets. Getting exited again!