anyway it could fit or not it won't appear in Halo 5, 343 had never planned a falcon, every DLC was planned before even the game launched, the DLCs were a way to implement everything they didn't have finished before the game launched, a falcon needs too much time to develop, adding it would mean 343 must add another DLC (which they hadn't planned) with other kind of content, like armors, skins, other reqs, attachments maybe, assasinations, stances and even maps (because it won't be a DLC if they just add a falcon and that's all, that would be the most mediocre DLC of all), they won' t risk money, time, and resources like that just for the sake of adding the falcon, really when will people understand that???Naqser wrote:2: Let's reset here. Define "free kill" for me.Naqser wrote:RevivedDesert82 wrote:We could have the campaign falcon with the front chaingun that was REALLY powerful+shields like the sword hog.
- sorry, my mistake, I meant triple but I got confused.
- yes it still a free triple, I know you spend a req to destroy it, but you're guaranted that if you destroy it you'll get at least a triple kill (then counting the next kills you get with it later in other vehicles). Also every aircraft in Halo 5 is designed to be in a quick assault, just shoot to help as you can with your vehicle and then scape quickly to avoid dangerous weapons, the falcon is the easier target you could have in Halo 5, not nesseray to spend a req for a spartan laser, even an longshot BR or DMR could be easly used to kill the gunners, in which case is not a triple, but still is a free double kill, the falcon just won't fit with the actual WZ mechanics.
- first of all you're contradicting yourself since you said previously the player needs to spend a req to take it down, and then you're saying that what are we paying or spending for taking down a vehicle??that makes no sense, anyway what Iwas referng to is that no matter how hard it needs to take it down,once to destroy it it guarantees you a triple kill, or without destroying it, just killing the gunners which are exposed still guarantees you a doublé kill and without spending a req even with a longshot BR or DMR. really do I have to repeat it again??
You mean like we pistol gunners out of warthogs? Or can get triple kills from desteoying the Warthogs?
How does any other vehicle fit then? Even with their evasive manouvers, I had no problems taking down Banshees or Phateons without wasting a single laser charge.
3: No, I'm asking you to explain what we are paying when we're not getting "free kills". If the Falcon no matter what is a free triple, wouldn't every other vehicle follow suit? If they don't, provided you actually define a "free kill" in point 2, and depending on how. Why don't they follow suit?
As opposed to a driver on a mongoose or gungoose, a gunner on a warthog, scorpion or wraith, and to some extent a driver on a ghost and a warthog?
That's also provided no changes would be made for the falcon. You know, like not giving it abilities, not change speeds or accelerations (it was actually quite fast), or make gunners slightly less exposed or giving them the ability to swap seats with each other or just swap to an empty seat, or adding an extra seat to jump to in times of dangers.
There is always hope for some. However, you make a good point on having Halo 6 fully developed at launch, which I'm sure EVERYONE wants, even me. Maybe we can get one in Halo 6.no it can't, Halo 6 can, but is too late for even starting developing the Falcon, how many times would I have to say that 343 had everything in the DLCs planned already before the game launched, they did them in DLCs because thjey needed to do some adjustments and they couldn't release that features since launch, THE FALCON WASN'T ON THEIR PLANS, IT NEEDS TOO MUCH TIME TO DEVELOP, TIME 343 COULD DO IN SOMETHING BETTER LIKE FOCUS ON HALO 6, ALL THE DLCS ARE ALREADY PLANNED, ADDING A FALCON WOULD NEED A WHOLE DLC WITH MORE REQS SKINS, ARMORS ETC.. AND THAT IS TOO MUCH WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY, ALSO IT WOULD BREAK THE SANDBOX, when will everyone understand this??? you can't just add a falcon in Halo 5 just with magic or something, try to think like it was your business, would you really risk all those things, money, time, resources, and sandbox just to fullfill a whim of some fans (not even all, just some), really????Because I want it in a fresher Halo game. One that has a lot of potential(plus playing new alexandria lvl on the reach campaign gets boring after a while). Halo 5 could add it AND variants.well, then you should play reach instead, after all it's now aviable on Xbox One, why would you try to add something in a different game for the sake of adding it if you have it already in another game you can still play???I'm not sore about that. All I want is to have a friend/s backing me up in a non-pilot gun in an air vehicle.anyway If it could fit or not I'm 100% sure it won't appear in Halo 5, is just too late for even starting developing it, 343 has better thins to do, like focus on Halo 6 so it doesn't get as crap as Halo 5 at it's early launch, 343 had planned everything in their DLCs before the game even launched, but they where still in development so they add them in later DLCs, the falcon had never been in their plans (geez and thinking that all this started just because we didn't got a falcon in memories of reach, really??? the DLC promised Infection and the noble team's armors, it never said anything about the falcon, just stop complaining, it won't happen). Maybe for Halo 6 or later games it could be implemented, but is too late for having it on Halo 5, when are everyone going to understand that???All I'm doing is suggesting a viable Halo 5 option. Heck, they could even do it for Halo 6. Whats wrong with wanting something from a previous Halo game in a newer halo game?just ignore them, they'll never undestand Halo 5 is Halo 5, not Reach.Are you just going to ignore the whole, "Spawns out in the open, has no gunners and AI gunners are a solution but a boring and unfun one, is a big target and doesn't offer much more offensive capability than a warthog, and given that a player would have to find player gunners if AI gunners weren't a thing that they'd be vulnerable to the many dozens of Reqs on the field, on top of the fact that there is no fall damage, no penalty for bailing out, and that the pilot has absolutely zero agency in target acquisition when their gunners are AI, which is the reason Reach's falcon in the campaign had a gun to begin with" thing?buff armor.That's just demonstrably untrue. What do you want to add? Shields, grenade turrets, a gun for the operator? Any major changes makes it a different vehicle.All it needs is a buff...*shrugs shoulders*Basically.Yeah, that's the issue I see with adding a modified Falcon to Halo 5. If they do add it, the community is going to explode and start raging about how it isn't the same and then proceed to devolve it into a thread about how Halo 5 is Call of Duty.Once again, this continues to prove the point. Any alterations to what we know would not be the Falcon we want. There is no way to get that vehicle into this game.True. Maybe give it rockets or missiles that can lock on to most targets instead of a chin-mounted gun?A solid enough suggestion, but thus far each air vehicle has to be operated by a single occupant reliably.
I dunno. Personally don't care much for the Falcon, just trying to come up with ideas for those who do care.
Anything else would not even be the same in lore.
So there really is, all in all, no way to include the Falcon into Halo 5 without massive Warzone reworking. Even a particular somebody has not discovered anything about the Falcon even being tested in Halo 5.
It really does suck but it's just not for this game. The Falcon was very much a product of Reach, for Reach.
Halo Fans are not fond of this, and the point of the Falcon is cooperation- something not encouraged by Halo 5's Warzone mode.
If it doesn't fly in Warzone, it doesn't fly anywhere.
Are we all just going to forever ignore all these factors, and pretend the Falcon works in Halo 5? I'm not.
In our discussion here, have I said that they have to add it? Or have I just argued against the claim that it can't fit Halo 5?
I know perfectly well they're very likely not to add it. Discussions and arguments can be held anyway. If not for any other reason than to have them for the sake of having them. Best case is i343 implementing it in a later game because of these discussions and ideas.
They most likely did plan the DLCs in some form before the game released, however I'd still like to see some source on that, not because I don't believe you, but because you still haven't elaborated on anything I asked, free kills and so forth. You just changed the subject.