VTOL and Siege Bike Analysis & Predictions

[ForgeMonitor]

I'm sure by now you've heard of two new possible vehicles in Halo 5: the Light-Assault VTOL and the Siege Bike, two items released by MegaBloks. Keep in mind that while it is a good indication of what is to come (they haven't released a single non-canon vehicle to date), it is still a lot of speculation.

Let's go over the VTOL; it's a light-assault Vertical Take-Off and Landing vehicle, similar to the Hornet and Falcon. It has three propellers, which make it very maneuverable in tight spaces. Its armaments are two machine guns and a pair of rockets--sounds like a more agile Hornet. Here's what I like and don't like about this:

Like: There is now (again) a vehicular, balanced counter to the Banshee; it's great for machinima; it opens up a whole new dimension for BTB.

Dislike: It looks as though the pilot  controls the weapons, which means that there won't be the same sense of teamwork bolstered by the Falcon in Reach; Its hovering capabilities make it easy to spawn-camp other players from a safe altitude.

 

Now for the Siege Bike: Honestly, it's pretty much a UNSC Brute Chopper--except for the wicked treads. Its armaments are two heavy machine guns, which will probably function like the Chopper's cannons.

Like: It will fill the gap of that all-purpose vehicle, the Chopper.

Dislike: Since it takes the place of the Brute Chopper (and 343 isn't known to put redundant items into games--except for the BR and DMR), it probably means that the Brutes won't be back in Halo 5. It would go against the canon if they were because the Brutes were almost completely wiped out. At least we will have the core elements of their weapons and vehicles--343 is nice enough to give us that. Even so, I surmise that there will be a new berserker-type class of enemy to replace the Brutes, given the lack of spontaneity in Halo 4. This is even more speculation, but I suspect it will be a new type of Hunter, because that would follow the canon. 

Post your thoughts below. Would you like to see these changes? Keep in mind that something is better than nothing.

 

You can watch an in-depth analysis of this information on the channels of ChiefAlphaQ or Halo5Follower--I recommend the first because he has a bit more information and stutters just a bit less (sorry, Chris!). Also, there are cool pictures! Enjoy.

[BaconShelf]

I posted a thread about siege bike with their description and picture in general discussion should you want to add it in to here.

 

Never heard of VTOL, seems interesting...

 

Oh, and ever heard of a Drinol? A cut species from Halo 2, its possible they could add that in. Or a 'Sharqoui', mentioned in a conversation between elites and described by frank O Connor as VERY DANGEROUS.

 

Hit up halo wiki for details.

[SM295]

Well maybe some modifications are in order for the VTOL then. Maybe have the pilot in control of a light MG, like a SAW-style weapon as far as accuracy, ROF and power are concerned, and then have a couple gunners in control of a heavier MG and a single pod rocket launcher?

[BaconShelf]

Perhaps crease launchers like the Campaign Falcons from Reach?

 

Grenade launchers*

[Ryu♥Hayabusa]

Well maybe some modifications are in order for the VTOL then. Maybe have the pilot in control of a light MG, like a SAW-style weapon as far as accuracy, ROF and power are concerned, and then have a couple gunners in control of a heavier MG and a single pod rocket launcher?

Any aerial vehicle always gives the pilot access to the better weapons while the gunners are for support. That's how it always goes.

[SM295]

Any aerial vehicle always gives the pilot access to the better weapons while the gunners are for support. That's how it always goes.

Not true, the Falcon always gave the gunners the better guns, even in campaign.

[Ryu♥Hayabusa]

Not true, the Falcon always gave the gunners the better guns, even in campaign.

Only if you had a Grenade Launcher Falcon. In MP, it was because the pilot's gun was so OP. See, if the pilot has any guns at all, they have the best. If they have none, then the gunners have the best. A quick glance at RL shows this is almost always the case. Even in Halo.

 

For example: The Hornet gave the pilot weapon control so they had some badass guns. The riders had to use whatever they had, be it Splazer or Magnum. The falcon takes the pilot's weapon control away but gives the gunners access to some badass machine-gun turrets. Therefore, if the gunners have access to vehicular weapons, the pilot probably wont have access to any. Unless it is the same weapon the gunners have access to. (I would have loved for the falcon to let the pilot control a chin-mounted version of the side guns so passengers weren't a necessity.)

[SM295]

That's interesting, and it does make sense. Maybe they should just bring the Falcon back for Halo 5, but let people ride in the passenger seats.

[Ryu♥Hayabusa]

That's interesting, and it does make sense. Maybe they should just bring the Falcon back for Halo 5, but let people ride in the passenger seats.

Exactly...  

[SM295]

Maybe add Rappel Ropes and Landing Gear as well?

[ForgeMonitor]

The VTOL is oriented toward single player use, whereas the Falcon requires teamwork. They function similarly, so it is possible to have both without sacrificing too much space.

[Firellight]

To be completely honest, I would not like to see either in the games. The VTOL is an interesting concept, but does not pass for being out in a war. There is no pilot's window (you can't pilot anything without being indoors. Even the Covenant knows this. Your ears can pop. Yes, spartans have helmets, but marines don't. And did you know that the siege bike has no steering?? Look at that, it just drives in one direction. Unless someone can explain how you can steer that linear wheel, then sure... but make a mongoose with a gun that again does not pass for being in a war - and replace the chopper?

 

On top of that, I wouldn't give a pass to vehicles that look "cheaply" made. Imo, those vehicles have no upgrades that allow for the survivability required out on the battlefield. Why would I spend my day driving a small bike with no defense when a mongoose has better defense, and I could just make do on foot? Infinity doesn't spend their money on Dollararmory vehicles when they can easily be upgraded by going to Walarmory for better items. I was earlier going to make a thread on why a new cyclops design should replace the mantis, and I will after this reply, but I hope you get the deal. The UNSC likes to make things better, not revert to lowly designs that can easily destroy its pilot. I mean, the UNSC even have the huragok now. Those guys have invented many things for the Covenant, they are smart enough to make things better than these two vehicles.

 

I hope I didn't offend anyone that like these vehicles, because I do like the designs - they just wouldn't be fit to give to a marine in a war. Anyone would rather just run on foot. :/

[Is not JL]

Imagine if the aerial vehicles played like the ones in BF3. I would love to play with that VTOL with BF3's realistic controls, and that would balance it out as well.

[BaconShelf]

Yes. And most people wouldn't be able to fly them. I have only ever had one kill in a jet on battlefield by flying into a tank. Many people can't use them. Same for helis.

 

Flying vehicles on Halo are easy to fly for everyone. Using BF controls would make it OP to a select few who can use it, and impossible for everyone else.

[Is not JL]

It's not that they're excessively hard....it's just that Halo's controls are dumbed down, while BF3 actually uses realistic controls, such as having to control pitch and yaw.

 

For the first month or so I couldn't play BF3's vehicles. But I practiced, and now I am great with it; 10x better with a communicating and good teammate. Jets as well.

[BaconShelf]

I prefer the 'dumbed down' controls. I don't see why they would change controls that have been established since CE. It's like using triggers to accelerate tanks and hogs. More like other games, but won't happen.

 

I would enjoy first-person vehicles though. That would be fun.

[Rozza 5]

I've seen the VTOL and to be honest, it doesn't look great (like something out of Lego city). However, the siege bike looks AWESOME AS HELL! hope your speculations are right.

[ForgeMonitor]

All of these "facts" are just rumors, but I do admit that I would like at least some of the remnants of the older games. Hopefully Xbox Durango will fix the limitations of the 360 and let 343i actually work with something.

[spartan123]

To be completely honest, I would not like to see either in the games. The VTOL is an interesting concept, but does not pass for being out in a war. There is no pilot's window (you can't pilot anything without being indoors. Even the Covenant knows this. Your ears can pop. Yes, spartans have helmets, but marines don't. And did you know that the siege bike has no steering?? Look at that, it just drives in one direction. Unless someone can explain how you can steer that linear wheel, then sure... but make a mongoose with a gun that again does not pass for being in a war - and replace the chopper?

 

On top of that, I wouldn't give a pass to vehicles that look "cheaply" made. Imo, those vehicles have no upgrades that allow for the survivability required out on the battlefield. Why would I spend my day driving a small bike with no defense when a mongoose has better defense, and I could just make do on foot? Infinity doesn't spend their money on Dollararmory vehicles when they can easily be upgraded by going to Walarmory for better items. I was earlier going to make a thread on why a new cyclops design should replace the mantis, and I will after this reply, but I hope you get the deal. The UNSC likes to make things better, not revert to lowly designs that can easily destroy its pilot. I mean, the UNSC even have the huragok now. Those guys have invented many things for the Covenant, they are smart enough to make things better than these two vehicles.

 

I hope I didn't offend anyone that like these vehicles, because I do like the designs - they just wouldn't be fit to give to a marine in a war. Anyone would rather just run on foot. :/

I agree with everything except the lack of a VTOL. They could just implement the Hawk from Halo Wars, which did have a pilot's window, and was realistic in design. 

[WonderWombat]

They should totally add a V/STOL vehicle, like a Harrier or F35.

 

Problem is they would need a massive map to fit such a potentially fast vehicle.

[ForgeMonitor]

To be completely honest, I would not like to see either in the games. The VTOL is an interesting concept, but does not pass for being out in a war. There is no pilot's window (you can't pilot anything without being indoors. Even the Covenant knows this. Your ears can pop. Yes, spartans have helmets, but marines don't. And did you know that the siege bike has no steering?? Look at that, it just drives in one direction. Unless someone can explain how you can steer that linear wheel, then sure... but make a mongoose with a gun that again does not pass for being in a war - and replace the chopper?

 

On top of that, I wouldn't give a pass to vehicles that look "cheaply" made. Imo, those vehicles have no upgrades that allow for the survivability required out on the battlefield. Why would I spend my day driving a small bike with no defense when a mongoose has better defense, and I could just make do on foot? Infinity doesn't spend their money on Dollararmory vehicles when they can easily be upgraded by going to Walarmory for better items. I was earlier going to make a thread on why a new cyclops design should replace the mantis, and I will after this reply, but I hope you get the deal. The UNSC likes to make things better, not revert to lowly designs that can easily destroy its pilot. I mean, the UNSC even have the huragok now. Those guys have invented many things for the Covenant, they are smart enough to make things better than these two vehicles.

 

I hope I didn't offend anyone that like these vehicles, because I do like the designs - they just wouldn't be fit to give to a marine in a war. Anyone would rather just run on foot. :/

 

It's not that they're excessively hard....it's just that Halo's controls are dumbed down, while BF3 actually uses realistic controls, such as having to control pitch and yaw.

 

For the first month or so I couldn't play BF3's vehicles. But I practiced, and now I am great with it; 10x better with a communicating and good teammate. Jets as well.

To both of you guys: Halo is not about being realistic. #EnergyShields #NoFallDamage

[WonderWombat]

I agree with everything except the lack of a VTOL. They could just implement the Hawk from Halo Wars, which did have a pilot's window, and was realistic in design. 

Problem with the vehicle design is that they have to submit to the power of game balance.

 

Just about every single vehicle that has been in the main games makes little to no sense in its design.

 

Warthog - isn't covered, and the turret guy is completely exposed

 

Mongoose - pretty useless overall all things considered

 

Ghost - again not covered from top or sides

Hornet - slow and exposed, uses a form of propellers

 

Falcon - Uses propellers and is again very exposed

 

Banshee - Incredibly slow with poorly designed tail

 

Wraith - Mobile Artillery acting as a tank... and its source of power is openly exposed on the back

 

Chopper - same as ghost

 

Spectre - same as Warthog

 

Prowler - same as warthog

 

Mantis - little armor and its internals are exposed like joints and wires

 

Four in game vehicles maybe make sense and that would be the Scorpion, Elephant, Mammoth, and the Scarab. The vehicles in Halo Wars don't have to fall victim to this balance issue as players aren't necessarily dominating the battlefield with them.

 

Battlefield can get away with this because of how it is designed. People can spawn completely armed and ready to destroy 3 tanks or a helicopter.