> - The implied design of the UNSC vehicles is only true of about half of them, at least in the FPS games. Notice you mentioned three teamwork-oriented vehicles AND three independently-oriented vehicles? Not to mention that, at least as far as multiplayer is concerned, it doesn’t really matter what aesthetic these vehicles are given (unless its Invasion). There have been a few Covenant vehicles that benefited from having two operators (Spectre, Prowler, Revenant to an extent).
You’ll also note that the Scorpion and Mantis are not given equal weighting in playlists compared to the others. They appear in less maps and in some cases, have neutral spawning points to serve as vehicle based PWs.
Spectre and Prowler were Warthog reskins and were bad for the vehicle sandbox.
Revenant with it’s passenger seat was an odd duc and aside from players abusing the auto aim with the Sniper Rifle, the passenger was just there. He didn’t control the plasma cannon in the back. He barely contributed to the success of the vehicle.
> – I find it ironic that you labeled the solo-operated vehicles as “outliers” because of their greater impact on the game, yet you didn’t address the Falcon (a powerful team-driven vehicle) as such.
I labeled them as outliers because of their infrequency in the MP in relation to teamwork based vehicles and role in the Campaign to facilitate vehicle sections.
> The Mongoose and Gungoose serve the same purpose. The distinction is that, if the need arises to defend yourself, you needn’t get out of the Gungoose to fire back.
And with fixed forward mounted machine guns the only targets the Gungoose can shoot at are targets it is bearing down on. For defense, you are better off trying to outrun your aggressor. Or simply getting out of the vehicle and using it as cover.
> - Bloat? Having a differently equipped variant of a pre-existing vehicle automatically constitutes as bloating the sandbox? As already mentioned in the original thread on this matter, every Halo game since H2 has had AT LEAST TWO variants of Warthog (in multiplayer, more so in Campaign). By your principles/logic, the Gauss Hog and Rocket Hog bloats the sandbox and shouldn’t be/shouldn’t have been included.
Really they shouldn’t.
Both were all but omitted from the MP. Gauss Hog in Reach was excluded from all variants because it could shoot through Forge geometry and in general because it’s basically an even stronger version of the Scorpion.
> How does the Gungoose infringe on the Ghost’s “territory” any more than the Mongoose does? Being armed and controlled by the driver? The Ghost is still the best at what its meant to do; the Gungoose likely won’t be able to compete against, or “infringe”, the Ghost for the reasons that you listed as shortcomings of its design.
So if you agree on the shortcomings of it’s designs, why bring it to H5? Just because?
You know that in H2A people are going to try and use it like a Ghost, like a full on assault vehicle, and end up getting it slagged and removing a quick traversal option slash objective puller from the field because they wanted to go kill someone.
> I again find it ironic that your “better solution” would technically infringe on the Warthog’s territory. Also, how would this solution negate your “bloat” argument?
If the Gungoose has to be in the game, that is a better way of doing it. Ideally it just wouldn’t be in the game.
> They may have slightly different applications, but you’re acting as though the Gungoose cannot do what the Mongoose can (as you said in the above quote). Can you elaborate on why the Gungoose cannot “push quickly to a position” or “quickly pull an objective out”?
Literally? It can. Realistically? It won’t.
Because the most common scenario I can think of is that the vehicle will either be occupied by someone trying to use it like a Ghost or it will be slagged because someone was trying to use it like a Ghost.