"Innovating" Vehicle Combat

I would like to suggest and discuss two main points: interactive and punctual damage on vehicles and team-orientated vehicles.

Starting off with interactive and punctual damage:

I am not sure anymore if you could do it in Halo 3 and I haven’t experienced it in Halo 4 but in Reach you have been able to destroy the Scorpion’s and Wraith’s main weapons but leave the vehicle itself still intact, hence you have been able to eliminate the threat without having to blow up the entire vehicle.
With that in mind I have thought about the addition of interactive and punctual damage that can be caused on purpose.
Why does a Plasma Grenade that sticks to a Warthog’s wheel blow up the entire vehicle? Why doesn’t the explosion only affect the area around the wheel and the wheel itself?
So, a well-placed Sticky on the wheel could either make the Hog harder to control or even unable to move (but the turret would still function) instead of causing overall damage or complete destruction.
Why not let the pilot of an aircraft have some trouble with controlling its vehicle by shooting at its turbines or stabilizers and cause them to malfunction?
Or shoot at and destroy the Mantis’ “joints” to cut off the connection between the operator and its weapons or simply blow off one of the Mantis’ arms with a rocket or 2 well-placed stickies.

I think with such a damage system you could theoretically increase the general damage resistance of vehicles but each vehicle would have at least one punctual weak point that could either minimize or eliminate the threat it causes.
Besides, I think it would create many unique, creative and skilful ways to take out vehicles effectively without necessarily relying on power weapons to destroy them entirely and would likely create many twists during a game.

Team-orientated vehicles:

When I take a look at the current and even at the past vehicle sandbox I see a lot of “single seaters” (Scorpion, Wraith, Mantis, Banshee, etc), which are giving a single individual massive power, for a game with a multiplayer that primarily focuses on team play.
Personally, I would like to see to keep more focus on designing vehicles that require team work to be used effectively.
Now I don’t ask for redesigning or replacing the entire vehicle sandbox (though I kind of like the thought of redesigning the Scorpion into a team-orientated vehicle for MP; 1 driver/operator for the MG & 1 operator for the main turret) but I would like to see more vehicles (especially heavy ones) that encourage and require team play.
Vehicles with a similar concept like the Warthog or the Falcon is what I am aiming for.
You require one person who is solely piloting the vehicle plus at least another person who is solely operating the arms. But only when the occupants of the vehicle are working together as a team the vehicle becomes a true threat for the enemy.
Also, when you split the roles you could allow the pilot/driver a larger variety of more precise maneuvers, since he would not have to focus on shooting.
Besides, I think it is often much more fun to successfully operating a vehicle as a team than to seed death in a “single seater”.

Last but not least, I would like to introduce you to a concept of mine that I think could put team play and vehicle combat on a different level.

Castor and Pollux – the inseparable twins
(Inspired by the Sentinels from the novel Ghosts of Onyx)

Faction: Forerunner

Castor and Pollux would be “light” armored and armed (2 light hardlight cannons), hovering, agile and fast moving vehicles that can only be occupied by a single person. They would be identical in their functions but would have slight differences in their aesthetics to differ which is Castor and which is Pollux (I explain the reason for that later).
So far, with exception of their aesthetical design, weaponry and possible unique maneuvers, they wouldn’t be so special in comparison to the already existing vehicles.
But here comes the twist!
The vehicles Castor and Pollux would always appear as a pair on the map (either 2 for each team or placed together or separately in fair locations) and like the Sentinels from Onyx they are able to unite with each other.
To unite Castor and Pollux they have to be occupied by players from the same team. Are both vehicles arranged in a close range to each other you are able send a request (via a certain button) to your team mate that tells him that you would like to unite with him/her. If your team mate confirms the request the vehicles unite.
What was separated would now become one, what would mean you achieve double the strength (power and resistance) but in exchange for agility.
The new vehicle would now be controlled by a pilot, who solely pilots the vehicle, and a gunner, who solely operates the weapon: a powerful Sentinel Beam.
To prevent that the positions of pilot and gunner get distributed randomly, the player who controlled Castor would always become the pilot while the player who controlled Pollux would always become the gunner (that’s why the slight differences in aesthetics).

Now I would like to know what you think about that.
Feel free to comment, suggest or criticize as long as it is constructive.
Concepts of vehicles that would encourage team play are appreciated.

Punctual damage as a concept isn’t necessarily bad. But I disagree with some things, which I will get to in a bit.

I don’t think it’s bad that a Sniper Rifle or Battle Rifle can destroy a vehicle.
What I find bad is all those weapons have to do is shoot the hull of the vehicle.

Adding weak spots that are vulnerable to small arms fire is much better design than what we have now.

That said, explosives and the spartan laser should cause damage to the entire vehicle, because that is their niche. Having a rocket only disable a warthog’s wheels would unnecessarily nerf the weapon.

As for team vehicles, the problem I have is that it’s usually not all that interesting for the driver. The driver doesn’t have a ton to worry about, and the extent he can kill players is usually limited to just running them over (and that’s assuming the gunner doesn’t gun them down first).

I very much agree, I think interactive vehicle damage is the way forward. I always imagined it working similar to Hunter destructible armour. Where the more damage a vehicles takes the more vulnerable they are to small arms fire. Like for example stick the front windscreen of a Warthog or the canopy of a Falcon and you break the glass, making the driver vulnerable to precision shooting.

I would love to see instances of vehicles being disabled not destroyed. Like for example destroying one of the rotors of a falcon or a wing of a banshee and watch them crash to the ground, maybe they would explode when they hit the ground from the fall damage but the pilot and passengers would have a chance to eject.

I think the whole way vehicles are balanced at the moment needs readdressing. I Think rifles should only be able to do damage through precision shooting. You should not be able to destroy a warthog from shooting it in the bumper. You should either be aiming for the Spartans them selves or the week spots on the vehicles. Like the windscreen, wheels or engine.

It should take maybe 3 sticks/ 2 rocket hits… etc to destroy a Warthog. But one hit could maybe leave it more vulnerable than before.

> Punctual damage as a concept isn’t necessarily bad. But I disagree with some things, which I will get to in a bit.
>
> I don’t think it’s bad that a Sniper Rifle or Battle Rifle can destroy a vehicle.
> What I find bad is all those weapons have to do is shoot the hull of the vehicle.
>
> Adding weak spots that are vulnerable to small arms fire is much better design than what we have now.
>
> That said, explosives and the spartan laser should cause damage to the entire vehicle, because that is their niche. Having a rocket only disable a warthog’s wheels would unnecessarily nerf the weapon.
>
> As for team vehicles, the problem I have is that it’s usually not all that interesting for the driver. The driver doesn’t have a ton to worry about, and the extent he can kill players is usually limited to just running them over (and that’s assuming the gunner doesn’t gun them down first).

I don’t think like BR’s and Snipers should be able to destroy vehicles like in Reach (And as in Halo 4 if it is as easy).

I think the vehicle health system should work like in Halo 3, and the only viable weapons against vehicles are grenades, rocket launcher spartan launcher etc

I do however think it would be cool if weapons such as the sniper could shoot the Warthogs wheels and make them fall off.

2 bullets with the sniper would take off 1 wheel making the warthog hard to control. But then again, sniping the vehicles is hard.

2 shots with the sniper to the rotor of the falcon would disable it and make it crash-land.

> Punctual damage as a concept isn’t necessarily bad. But I disagree with some things, which I will get to in a bit.
>
> I don’t think it’s bad that a Sniper Rifle or Battle Rifle can destroy a vehicle.
> What I find bad is all those weapons have to do is shoot the hull of the vehicle.
>
> Adding weak spots that are vulnerable to small arms fire is much better design than what we have now.
>
> That said, <mark>explosives and the spartan laser should cause damage to the entire vehicle, because that is their niche</mark>. Having a rocket only disable a warthog’s wheels would unnecessarily nerf the weapon.

Of course the Splaser and heavy explosive weapons should still be able to destroy the entire vehicle in one or two hits (perhaps I should have made that clear).
Nonetheless it could be important in which spot you hit the vehicle to guarantee a 1sk.
For example:
When you hit the Mantis’ drivers cab (shields down) directly with a rocket or Splaser shot it will definitely explode but when you only hit one of its arms it will only lose the arm plus taking some general damage or when you hit a leg it will collapse and become unusable but the operator would be still alive.

> As for team vehicles, the problem I have is that it’s usually not all that interesting for the driver. The driver doesn’t have a ton to worry about, and the extent he can kill players is usually limited to just running them over (and that’s assuming the gunner doesn’t gun them down first).

Well, a driver’s/pilot’s goal isn’t to kill (that’s the gunner’s job) but putting the gunner in good position and keeping him/her save.
Personally I think the driver/pilot is actually the one who has to worry about the most since he is the “brain” of the vehicle.
But of course there are probably more people who like to play as the gunner and not as the driver/pilot.

> I don’t think like BR’s and Snipers should be able to destroy vehicles like in Reach (And as in Halo 4 if it is as easy).
>
> I think the vehicle health system should work like in Halo 3, and the only viable weapons against vehicles are grenades, rocket launcher <mark>spartan launcher</mark> etc

I would love to see a Spartan Launcher. :smiley:

> I do however think it would be cool if weapons such as the sniper could shoot the Warthogs wheels and make them fall off.
>
> 2 bullets with the sniper would take off 1 wheel making the warthog hard to control. <mark>But then again, sniping the vehicles is hard.</mark>
>
> 2 shots with the sniper to the rotor of the falcon would disable it and make it crash-land.

That’s the catch. You would be able to disable a vehicle immediately with a single or few well-placed shots but you have to be really accurate.

> Well, a driver’s/pilot’s goal isn’t to kill (that’s the gunner’s job) but putting his gunner in good position and keeping him save.
> Personally I think the driver/pilot is actually the one who has to worry about the most since he is the “brain” of the vehicle.
> But of course there are probably more people who like to play as the gunner and not as the driver/pilot.

I actually think the Warthogs splattering ability should be promoted a bit more. So that driving needn’t be such a selfless act. The Radar range of Spartans shouldn’t be as excessive as it is now. And no vehicle indicators either 343. It bugs me so much that we have those arrows around the edge of the radar pointing at vehicles. And of course weapons like plasma grenades and plasma pistols should be pick ups.

I think the top speed of Warthogs should be slightly increased, though not the acceleration, maps also need to be design such that Warthogs can reach those speeds. The faster a Warthog is travelling the harder it is to destroy. Drivers then can be tasked to keep up their speed to avoid things like grenades, rockets, gun fire and boarding. And on top of that they would be able to get some surprise splatters.

I really like the Castor and Pollox idea (and I am all for vehicles being powerful again), but I have no idea how you came up with those names. They seem completely random.

> > Well, a driver’s/pilot’s goal isn’t to kill (that’s the gunner’s job) but putting his gunner in good position and keeping him save.
> > Personally I think the driver/pilot is actually the one who has to worry about the most since he is the “brain” of the vehicle.
> > But of course there are probably more people who like to play as the gunner and not as the driver/pilot.
>
> I actually think the Warthogs splattering ability should be promoted a bit more. So that driving needn’t be such a selfless act. The Radar range of Spartans shouldn’t be as excessive as it is now. And no vehicle indicators either 343. It bugs me so much that we have those arrows around the edge of the radar pointing at vehicles. And of course weapons like plasma grenades and plasma pistols should be pick ups.
>
> I think the top speed of Warthogs should be slightly increased, though not the acceleration, maps also need to be design such that Warthogs can reach those speeds. The faster a Warthog is travelling the harder it is to destroy. Drivers then can be tasked to keep up their speed to avoid things like grenades, rockets, gun fire and boarding. And on top of that they would be able to get some surprise splatters.

I agree on that.
Though a good driver won’t have the goal to splatter as much as he/she can, it would definitely help to make it an viable option from time to time and would support some more aggressive driving styles.

In addition because you mentioned and suggested the removal of the indicators, I think there has to happen something with the sound instead. It annoys me when I get splattered by a Warthog from behind because you are not able to hear it.

> I really like the Castor and Pollox idea (and I am all for vehicles being powerful again), but I have no idea how you came up with those names. They seem completely random.

Thanks, I am glad you like my idea.

Castor and Pollux are the mythologic twin brothers.

> > > Well, a driver’s/pilot’s goal isn’t to kill (that’s the gunner’s job) but putting his gunner in good position and keeping him save.
> > > Personally I think the driver/pilot is actually the one who has to worry about the most since he is the “brain” of the vehicle.
> > > But of course there are probably more people who like to play as the gunner and not as the driver/pilot.
> >
> > I actually think the Warthogs splattering ability should be promoted a bit more. So that driving needn’t be such a selfless act. The Radar range of Spartans shouldn’t be as excessive as it is now. And no vehicle indicators either 343. It bugs me so much that we have those arrows around the edge of the radar pointing at vehicles. And of course weapons like plasma grenades and plasma pistols should be pick ups.
> >
> > I think the top speed of Warthogs should be slightly increased, though not the acceleration, maps also need to be design such that Warthogs can reach those speeds. The faster a Warthog is travelling the harder it is to destroy. Drivers then can be tasked to keep up their speed to avoid things like grenades, rockets, gun fire and boarding. And on top of that they would be able to get some surprise splatters.
>
> I agree on that.
> Though a good driver won’t have the goal to splatter as much as he/she can, it would definitely help to make it an viable option from time to time and would support some more aggressive driving styles.
>
> In addition because you mentioned and suggested the removal of the indicators, I think there has to happen something with the sound instead. It annoys me when I get splattered by a Warthog from behind because your are not able to hear it.

Presumably this is not an issue if you have surround sound or a headset but any sound coming from behind me is pretty much inaudible on my TV. I’ve tested standing next to a waterfall, turning up the volume, then turning around. The sound of the waterfall practically switches off when I have my back to it. :frowning:

I am an advocate that all deaths should be in some way preventable or else there can be no skill gap. And I think a last second radar and engine sound warning giving you a chance to jump if you react is very appropriate in this case. Though it should very much a be last second the main skill gap should be staying aware.

> > I really like the Castor and Pollox idea (and I am all for vehicles being powerful again), but I have no idea how you came up with those names. They seem completely random.
>
> Thanks, I am glad you like my idea.
>
> Castor and Pollux are the mythologic twin brothers.

Google is a handy device. I’ll try using it next time before I ask questions. Anyway, the name of the combined machine would be… Gemini?

> Presumably this is not an issue if you have surround sound or a headset but any sound coming from behind me is pretty much inaudible on my TV. I’ve tested standing next to a waterfall, turning up the volume, then turning around. The sound of the waterfall practically switches off when I have my back to it. :frowning:
>
> I am an advocate that all deaths should be in some way preventable or else there can be no skill gap. And I think a last second radar and engine sound warning giving you a chance to jump if you react is very appropriate in this case. Though it should very much a be last second the main skill gap should be staying aware.

I experienced the same sound incident with the waterfall. Of course it’s just a small sound issue in that regard but in regard to vehicles it is disturbing.
The only vehicle I could imagine that could be nearly silent is the Ghost. I think it would fit to its name as well and I would even say that the splatter is the Ghost main weapon anyway.

And indeed, an “engine sound warning”, aside a last second radar, that allows you a fair reaction time is very appropriate.

> > > I really like the Castor and Pollox idea (and I am all for vehicles being powerful again), but I have no idea how you came up with those names. They seem completely random.
> >
> > Thanks, I am glad you like my idea.
> >
> > Castor and Pollux are the mythologic twin brothers.
>
> Google is a handy device. I’ll try using it next time before I ask questions. Anyway, the name of the combined machine would be… Gemini?

Mmh, to be honest, I haven’t thought about a name for the combined machine until now.
I am not quite sure if the term Gemini (twins) would describe it correctly.
What about Siamese, since the machine would have two individual heads (pilot/gunner) and evolves from two combined “twins”?

I agree. I remember in a mission on Halo 3, there was a hog with it’s wheels blown off, but the turret still active.

I love the Castor and Pollux idea, that would be brilliant. Would they be able to seperate from each other again though? That would be even better.

> > > > I really like the Castor and Pollox idea (and I am all for vehicles being powerful again), but I have no idea how you came up with those names. They seem completely random.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I am glad you like my idea.
> > >
> > > Castor and Pollux are the mythologic twin brothers.
> >
> > Google is a handy device. I’ll try using it next time before I ask questions. Anyway, the name of the combined machine would be… Gemini?
>
> Mmh, to be honest, I haven’t thought about a name for the combined machine until now.
> I am not quite sure if the term Gemini (twins) would describe it correctly.
> What about Siamese, since the machine would have two individual heads (pilot/gunner) and evolves from two combined “twins”?

Well, according to mythology, Pollux asked Zeus to let him share his immortality with his deceased twin Castor. Zeus accepted this wish by transforming them collectively into the constellation Gemini. I think it is rather fitting, myself. :slight_smile:

I have also wanted this for a while, and think that anytime your in a vehicle, you should have a diagram of the vehicle either on far left or right of screen that indicated damage.

And each degree of damage would be color coded:

Green = Healthy
Yellow = Minor Damage
Orange = Medium Damage
Red = Heavy Damage

Also Vehicles should be split for damage input, for example the Worthog should be split in 3. Driver, Passenger and Gunner. Any plasma grenade that lands within that area, should kill the passenger in the area and cause Heavy Damage in that area. Other ocupents will survive, but take damage depending where the grenade landed.

I hate sticking a worthog on the side directly next to occupant and they survive. And sometimes even survive 2 grenades in the same spot.

If 343 can really evolve the damage on vehicles in a way that Vehicles are still powerful, but damage is balanced and fair. Then this would be great. I find it wierd that sometimes a single plasma grenade will destroy a worthog and other times 3 plasma grenade do not destroy it.

And more annoying when you die from a single plasma grenade when your in the tank, but the grenade was no where near your canopy. Vehicle Damage has too many inconstancy. And this is true for other Halo games as well, not just Halo 4.

This is something that needs to be fixed and evolved for Halo 5.

Hardlight Chariot
Two seated chopper equivalent.
One seat drives and operates speed boost.
Second seat operates hardlight blades.

When holding right trigger:
-Blades are loaded, cover sides of vehicle.
-In this state, they destroy any light-medium vehicles that are rammed into.

When releasing right trigger:
-Blades shoot out in the direction the vehicle is facing.
-Essentially the driver aims while the gunner shoots.
-Blades that are shot out do moderate damage to enemy vehicles.

Crude MS Paint drawing

> I love the Castor and Pollux idea, that would be brilliant. <mark>Would they be able to seperate from each other again though? That would be even better</mark>.

Thanks, I’m glad that you like it.

That’s something I am still thinking about.
I guess you could be able to separate the same way you unite (request and confirm) but only to a specific received damage degree, since you would likely split the damage, they received as their united form, on Castor and Pollux in some way when they separate again.