I would like to see vehicles take less damage from the sniper rifle and DMR and weapons like them, or go back to the old system of your shields been your vehicle health system, personally I like vehicles having their own health though.
The sniper should stick to killing infantry while the Spartan Laser and other anti vehicle weapons should be used against vehicles, rather than having a weapon that is not only capable of killing anyone in one shot at any distance, but also capable of annihilating vehicles.
Just my thoughts. Also having a health bar for the vehicle would be nice 
Combination of both vehicle health and player health could work…
Have you seen the sniper rifle in Reach? Its an anti material weapon, meaning it is effective against vehicles. I think its a good thing that they made the sniper rifle do what its supposed to do, if it were an infantry only weapon, it wouldnt be a 50cal.
and before you say “its not supposed to be realistic”, just know that if a soldier were to see that sniper in real life, they would automatically know it is usefull against vehicles.
Vehicle health all the way man. It perfectly makes sense and another tactic to take into consideration.
> Have you seen the sniper rifle in Reach? Its an anti material weapon, meaning it is effective against vehicles. I think its a good thing that they made the sniper rifle do what its supposed to do, if it were an infantry only weapon, it wouldnt be a 50cal.
>
> and before you say “its not supposed to be realistic”, just know that if a soldier were to see that sniper in real life, they would automatically know it is usefull against vehicles.
Okay, let throw realism out and take strictly balance. The effectiveness of precision weapons against vehicles practically kills vehicle combat, one of the hallmarks of Halo multiplayer. There are half a dozen anti-vehicle weapons, and dozens of strategies to counter vehicles. We don’t need to kill vehicle combat by making more weapons effective against vehicles.
I remember the complaints during Halo 3’s era, people saying that vehicle combat was dead. I never agreed until Reach released. I love it to death, but the fact that driving a warthog or ghost has become a hazard as oppose to a threat is very unengaging.
> > Have you seen the sniper rifle in Reach? Its an anti material weapon, meaning it is effective against vehicles. I think its a good thing that they made the sniper rifle do what its supposed to do, if it were an infantry only weapon, it wouldnt be a 50cal.
> >
> > and before you say “its not supposed to be realistic”, just know that if a soldier were to see that sniper in real life, they would automatically know it is usefull against vehicles.
>
> Okay, let throw realism out and take strictly balance. The effectiveness of precision weapons against vehicles practically kills vehicle combat, one of the hallmarks of Halo multiplayer. There are half a dozen anti-vehicle weapons, and dozens of strategies to counter vehicles. We don’t need to kill vehicle combat by making more weapons effective against vehicles.
>
> I remember the complaints during Halo 3’s era, people saying that vehicle combat was dead. I never agreed until Reach released. I love it to death, but the fact that driving a warthog or ghost has become a hazard as oppose to a threat is very unengaging.
I know the DMR shouldnt do as much (but it should still hurt) damage to vehicles as it does, but unless they change the sniper to a different type, dont expect it to do less damage to vehicles.
I loved the Halo 3 vehicle health system, but I think that Halo 4 should present a brand new one that is fair and actually makes the Scorpion feel like a tank again (unlike in Reach).
> > > Have you seen the sniper rifle in Reach? Its an anti material weapon, meaning it is effective against vehicles. I think its a good thing that they made the sniper rifle do what its supposed to do, if it were an infantry only weapon, it wouldnt be a 50cal.
> > >
> > > and before you say “its not supposed to be realistic”, just know that if a soldier were to see that sniper in real life, they would automatically know it is usefull against vehicles.
> >
> > Okay, let throw realism out and take strictly balance. The effectiveness of precision weapons against vehicles practically kills vehicle combat, one of the hallmarks of Halo multiplayer. There are half a dozen anti-vehicle weapons, and dozens of strategies to counter vehicles. We don’t need to kill vehicle combat by making more weapons effective against vehicles.
> >
> > I remember the complaints during Halo 3’s era, people saying that vehicle combat was dead. I never agreed until Reach released. I love it to death, but the fact that driving a warthog or ghost has become a hazard as oppose to a threat is very unengaging.
>
> I know the DMR shouldnt do as much (but it should still hurt) damage to vehicles as it does, but unless they change the sniper to a different type, dont expect it to do less damage to vehicles.
The Sniper Rifle has always been an anti-material rifle, Reach was the first game to allow the levels of vehicle damage it does.
Again, it’s not a matter of what the weapons should do, it’s a matter of balancing the game. Like I said, with things the way they are, vehicle combat is practically useless. To me, that’s not a good thing.
Vehicle health makes more sense
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
> Have you seen the sniper rifle in Reach? Its an anti material weapon, meaning it is effective against vehicles. I think its a good thing that they made the sniper rifle do what its supposed to do, if it were an infantry only weapon, it wouldnt be a 50cal.
>
> and before you say “its not supposed to be realistic”, just know that if a soldier were to see that sniper in real life, they would automatically know it is usefull against vehicles.
I know it’s anti material, but I’d rather it wasn’t. But it should be so damaging against vehicles, it should be damaging yes, but now, it’s just too much in my opinion.
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Having vehicles being blown up by DMRs and Snipers Ruined the balanced and epic vehicle combat in Halo. The only reason I still play Halo 3 is because the vehicle combat is ridiculously better than in Reach. In Halo 3 you could have epic moments in vehicle on vehicle combat. But in Reach its largely one sided- infantry can blow up warthogs really quickly with DMRs which reduces the amount of time spent in vehicles and makes it less of an “epic struggle”. In my opinion, BTB is what distinguishes Halo because no other FPS offers the kind of interactivity and balanced confrontations between infantry and vehicles. In Battlefield, there is little time for players to react to vehicles since they move and kill so quickly and conversely with vehicle-killing weapons.
The sense of struggle in BTB needs to be restored in Halo, which can only be done with increased health for vehicles, having vehicle-killing weapons that have to be fought for as well and keeping each weapon in there own role(sniper shouldnt kill vehicles)
Agreed, the way vehicles were handled in Reach was absolutely terrible. I think that either we go back to the Halo 3 system, where shields and health dictated whether the vehicle was going to explode, or vehicles retain their own, separate, health bar but are given a significant buff against small arms, so using the 'Hog and the Ghost, or whatever will replace the latter, becomes a viable strategy again. The Sniper Rifle should also lose its anti-vehicle capabilities.
However, I do believe that external damage to vehicles should do something in their operation. For example, a 'Hog with damaged tyres should be harder to control than one that is in good condition; a damaged Scorpion should move slower. Something like that.
The sniper Rifle fires a .50 caliber round. That bullet, in 2012, can crack engine blocks in half, destroy running airplane engines, and penetrate tank armor. In the 2500’s, you are using a 500 year old bullet, so more then likely there have been some armor developments against the .50 caliber.
I agree entirley with the op.
> The sniper Rifle fires a .50 caliber round. That bullet, in 2012, can crack engine blocks in half, destroy running airplane engines, and penetrate tank armor. In the 2500’s, you are using a <mark>500 year old bullet</mark>, so more then likely there have been some armor developments against the .50 caliber.
>
> I agree entirley with the op.
You really think they would use the same exact “bullet” design 500 years from now?
> > The sniper Rifle fires a .50 caliber round. That bullet, in 2012, can crack engine blocks in half, destroy running airplane engines, and penetrate tank armor. In the 2500’s, you are using a <mark>500 year old bullet</mark>, so more then likely there have been some armor developments against the .50 caliber.
> >
> > I agree entirley with the op.
>
> You really think they would use the same exact “bullet” design 500 years from now?
no, But the bulet still has a 0.5 in. diamater, so it will be hard to get any more power out of it. also, look at Jun’s left shoulder in Halo Reach, those look like the .50 cal rounds I have seen.