New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2 [Archive] - Page 2

Sirisian

2011-10-09, 03:51 PM

Well PS2 is steering away from team based action sadly if you havent noticed the redo of vehicle design into a more rambo/solo style rather than teamwork based.
You're skewing the change into something it's not. The PS2 system is going into a more infantry centric direction where players work together using vehicles in groups rather than forced teamwork. This direction is more interesting for players since it gives all players a combat role and their own vehicle to control and upgrade. The goal is to balance these vehicles so they can work together. This is one thing I've done with my mech idea to keep a balanced maneuverable ground vehicle with a low top speed.

stuck thinking about PS1
That kind of discussion is only useful for finding out what not to do which is pretty evident in this thread. A lot of people have already brought up those points as things they didn't want to see in very constructive arguments.

We already have single person bipedal mechs. They're called MAX UNITS.

It sounds like you want something similar only with like 5x as much ownsauce. It's not needed. It's not going to happen. MAX is a good single player mech implementation. Tougher than a soldier, but lacks versatility and can't be deployed from just anywhere. That's about as good as a mech should be.
You didn't even read the thread. What I described isn't anything like you described. The MAX topic has already been discussed. If you can't tell the difference between a MAX unit and a Mech then you have some serious logical deficiencies, and it's going to be hard to have a meaningful conversation with you.

I don't care about them because Smed already said they wouldn't be in, no point arguing about them in a 900 page thread. :p
T-Ray still wants them, and I'm confident in his ability to make change. (That and he sounded like he'd like to model them and bring them into the new PS2 style).

Also I've yet to see a solid argument against this thread. The only legit argument has been that a person doesn't like the chassis design. Other than that it's been a spew of irrational, as Vancha put it, comments. This community can do better than that.

DviddLeff

2011-10-09, 04:50 PM

Stop trying to balance them as an alternative to a tank. Trying to get rid of those kinds of Power Ranger ideas.

Why are they not an alternate vehicle to a tank? They fill a similar role; that of fire support, just walk instead of roll. To balance their slower movement compared to the Lightning you and I both suggest they have more armour than it.

Sirisian

2011-10-09, 05:30 PM

Why are they not an alternate vehicle to a tank? They fill a similar role; that of fire support, just walk instead of roll. To balance their slower movement compared to the Lightning you and I both suggest they have more armour than it.
Yes, but the armor is separated across components that can be individually damaged. The armor isn't designed to make the vehicle more powerful. It's just designed to keep the components alive longer. To put this into perspective it took 4 shots from a vanguard to destroy a lightning. On a vehicle that can strafe and dodge long range rounds 8 shots sounds like a good number. You might take 2 hits to destroy a weapon for instance. Again as I mentioned before turning the mech chassis to take hits on less needed components would then be a strategy. Getting hit in the back once might disable the momentary shield upgrade.

So it's not making them equal to a tank. The armor is just to make their larger target less of a disadvantage. Basically it would take a mech a while using AV machine guns to destroy a tank. (Hit and run attacks from afar to protect their components). While if a tank got a jump on a mech it would be a relatively "easy" kill. I guess I could see them as being an alternative in a way, but not in the sense that they'd be firing hard hitting AV rounds. Their DPS would be much lower. They lack a secondary gunner so a tank would tend to have a lot more fire power with one and less weaknesses with a gunner. For instance a Reaver dropping on a mech would be gamer over possibly while a tank would walk it off with its higher armor and possibly second gunner.

DviddLeff

2011-10-09, 06:14 PM

So the main features are:
1. Able to negotiate dense and uneven terrain
2. Able to mitigate damage by presenting different components to the enemy.

SgtMAD

2011-10-09, 06:46 PM

if you haven't figured it out yet, 75% of the ppl responding to this thread voted no.
we don't care if you gave these POS's tissue armor and made them BEP fountains when you killed one, we don't want anything even resembling a BFR in PS2.

why anyone would want to revisit the one thing that literally drove thousands of ppl to leave PS in the matter of a couple of weeks,it killed the game back then and no one wants to see that crap ever again.

Sirisian

2011-10-09, 06:55 PM

So the main features are:
1. Able to negotiate dense and uneven terrain
2. Able to mitigate damage by presenting different components to the enemy.
That would depend on balance. I mean the VS Magrider is hovering. There's no real reason it can't go over terrain a Prowler or Vanguard can't. If it makes sense then the mech could traverse steeper inclines. Then again I'd prefer a momentary vertical jet as an upgrade for getting on top of difficult to reach terrain. That would give players more choices when upgrading.

About mitigating damage that's more of a side effect. A tank and other vehicles will have the same options. (Driving backwards so you don't get shot on the weaker armor in the back if they have weaker armor like that).

I'd say the big thing would be strafing and easy maneuverability in forests and other terrain and the ability to dodge normal dumb fired weapons.

if you haven't figured it out yet, 75% of the ppl responding to this thread voted no.
I understand that some people, like yourself, don't like mechs, and I've acknowledged that. I personally like Mad Cat designed mechs and think they'd be an excellent addition to the vehicles in PS2. I'm pretty sure the people against having mechs could deal with it if they were added.

SgtMAD

2011-10-09, 07:13 PM

why in the hell does everyone else have to put up with something that pretty much only you want?

Sirisian

2011-10-09, 07:51 PM

why in the hell does everyone else have to put up with something that pretty much only you want?
I'd like to believe I'm not the only one that likes the idea of mechs in PS2. What I meant was the people that are against it, like yourself, are overreacting toward a chassis design and thus would probably change their minds easily given a successful implementation.

Actually, I haven't asked. What's your grudge against mechs? Just the bipedal design? Do you like any mech design? Or are your problems more rooted into hypothetical balance issues? Or role overlap issues?

Raymac

2011-10-09, 08:33 PM

why are you feeding this BFR troll,if everyone ignored this, it would fade away and we could go back to arguing about something else we know nothing about.

why in the hell does everyone else have to put up with something that pretty much only you want?

You were right the first time. You should take your own advice.

Mastachief

2011-10-09, 10:54 PM

I'd like to believe I'm not the only one that likes the idea of mechs in PS2. What I meant was the people that are against it, like yourself, are overreacting toward a chassis design and thus would probably change their minds easily given a successful implementation.

Actually, I haven't asked. What's your grudge against mechs? Just the bipedal design? Do you like any mech design? Or are your problems more rooted into hypothetical balance issues? Or role overlap issues?

Give it a rest already we have voiced our concerns, you just keep going around in circles.

Balance or not they do not belong in this game.

Sirisian

2011-10-09, 11:13 PM

Can you guys refrain from off-topic posts or use PMs. They're kind of distracting and just bump the thread for no reason.</ironic>
Give it a rest already we have voiced our concerns, you just keep going around in circles.
Speak for yourself (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/search.php?searchid=624529). You've added nothing of value to this thread since you started posting other than to try to de-rail it. :rolleyes:

Balance or not they do not belong in this game.
Because you don't like the mech chassis. I got that already.

You were right the first time. You should take your own advice.
Don't feed the trolls. He's just trying to de-rail the thread.

PrISM

2011-10-09, 11:35 PM

You're not going to get any support for mechs in Planetside. Your fighting an uphill battle from the stigma of BFRs, even if your ideas are different than what they are.

Personally I see no need for them in the game.

CutterJohn

2011-10-09, 11:45 PM

Tanks don't generally have the capability to climb 60 degree hills, and fly 600 yards backwards and 500 yards upwards suddenly to escape enemy fire. The issue wasn't what BFR's were, it was what they could do.

If we had infantry that could do that, after taking massive damage and surviving, while only having to crouch to renew a shield that was impenetrable to 150mm tank rounds, but vulnerable to pistols only, we wouldn't like them either. :D

You wouldn't like them, but you wouldn't say no infantry because ps1 had implemented it badly. You'd want balanced infantry.

The walking animation was purely graphical. It enabled none of those things. Those imbalances were allowed because the vehicle was programmed to do that. BFRs could have just been Big Frickin' Rocks, had the graphics of a large rock, and performed exactly the same.

Graphics have absolutely nothing to do with balance, aside from hitbox size/shape.

if you haven't figured it out yet, 75% of the ppl responding to this thread voted no.

And if you haven't figured out yet, this feeling is completely irrational.

why anyone would want to revisit the one thing that literally drove thousands of ppl to leave PS in the matter of a couple of weeks,it killed the game back then and no one wants to see that crap ever again.

Because poor balance decisions do not invalidate a graphical style. Once again. Graphics are not balance. The two things have nothing to do with each other. There could have been an OS Beamer in PS1 that banned anyone it killed. If this had existed, it would not invalidate the concept of pistols. It invalidates the concept of stupidly overpowered weapons.

You don't want OP crap. Mechs have nothing to do with that. Zero. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever. The BFR design was a design decision, reached by artists. The BFR imbalance was a balance decision, created by another set of people entirely.

Personally I see no need for them in the game.

Nor do I tbh. I can take em or leave em. I just really loathe the abhorrent logic seen in this thread. :D

Xyntech

2011-10-10, 01:22 AM

We have been told that BFR's will not be in PS2 at launch.

We also know that some of the developers have expressed interest in revisiting mechs but done differently than the failure that was BFR's.

There is no real good reason why mechs are needed in the game, nor is there a good reason why they shouldn't be in the game.

If the developers want to make another stab at it and get it right this time, sounds good to me. If they did include them, I would like to see mechs and MAX suits act as bridges between infantry and vehicles. The MAX suit would be closer to infantry while sharing some of the characteristics of a vehicle, while the mech would be closer to a vehicle while sharing some of the characteristics of infantry.

A mech as a replacement for a heavy battle tank is just a bad idea. A mech as a versatile light armor unit sounds much easier to balance.

I don't really want to see mechs in the game, just because of how crazy the community gets around the subject, but maybe once there are a lot of new players in PS2, it would be a less toxic reaction. Time will tell. They may decide there are a lot of better ideas than mechs to make, like naval combat, so the topic may never even become an issue.

Captain B

2011-10-10, 02:36 AM

I highly doubt naval combat will be implemented. With air and hover vehicles (VS) and the devs' lack of desire to put indirect fire (or at least limit it substantially) in PS2, there would be no point in speccing out naval combat - something that might not even be all that useful on many continents. The only thing I could imagine would be if it was like a moving fortress you had to defend, like a minigame of sorts, to get high resources. So you had to keep it repaired, man the turrets, provide air support, and so on (which could be really fun - like water towers!). Anything else just won't work with the primary focus on land, in bases, and in air.

Also, mechs wouldn't be able to enter bases or towers, and wouldn't exactly have the same "oomph" that tanks do, nor the top speeds. It'd be good for those areas like canyons and mountains where guerilla fighting and ambushes take place and tanks are sitting ducks, where they could provide some armor to the infantry footslogging it up the passes. At the same time, they would be extremely vulnerable in open field combat. I don't think they should even have epic weapons - mostly anti-infantry or maybe some AV/AA support - but they would fill a gap, as others have said, between MAX and vehicle.

MAXes in the open seem to get pounded into the dust as easily as any other infantry by air and armor, whereas the mech could still have some maneuverability (crouching, strafing) that vehicles don't have in areas where speed isn't as important, nor is having higher armor (that a tank would undoubtedly have).

CutterJohn

2011-10-10, 05:58 AM

A mech as a replacement for a heavy battle tank is just a bad idea. A mech as a versatile light armor unit sounds much easier to balance.

Please explain, in detail, the exact difference between a heavy tank and a heavy mech.

Captain B

2011-10-10, 07:30 AM

Please explain, in detail, the exact difference between a heavy tank and a heavy mech.

Huh? I don't think he was comparing heavy tank and heavy mech. He was implying that if there were mechs, they shouldn't be "heavy" but rather "light" vehicles.

I SandRock

2011-10-10, 07:38 AM

Don't like one-many army vehicles. Though I will miss 'big game hunting' sessions. It was great fun forming a mag / tresher party to hunt down BFRs :)

What I COULD see work is a support-type mech. Firepower would be equal to average infantry, less than specialized infantry. It's armor would obviously be better than infantry. It's role would be for commanders / support. So they can have a better overview of the battlefield without getting headshot by a sniper the moment they stick their head out. Perhaps allow the mech to have some information-system build-in to give battlefield readouts. See-through canopy with infared, etc.

Support function could be repairing vehicles, ammo resupply, etc.

So not so much a combat-unit as a commander/squad leader unit.

Talek Krell

2011-10-10, 02:06 PM

Mechs as described by the OP do not work here because they overpower the role of infantry in an area where infantry are supposed to dominate. There's no reason to have regions where ground vehicles can't go if you then design a ground vehicle that can go there.

Mechs as a concept do not work here for two primary reasons.
1. They break the setting. Mechs are not science fiction they are science fantasy. There is no technological level at which mechs make more sense than other propulsion methods. Planetside hews closer than most seem to realize to hard Sci-fi and mechs are anything but that.
2. Animating, programming, and implementing a mech is more expensive and less efficient than implementing a ground or air vehicle to fill the same role. Much like in real life, ironically enough.

This thread should have ended 18 pages ago, but Sirisian will no more admit defeat than accept that he is not the spokesman of the Silent Masses and the rest of us seem to have forgotten how to not feed trolls.

Sirisian

2011-10-10, 02:44 PM

Don't like one-many army vehicles.
Ideally they would be weaker than a tank overall as described and suffer from disadvantages to air. Ideally they'd need to work with others or they'd be taken out fast.

Regarding using them as a support role it's been brought up in a few of the pages. It's an interesting idea for engineers as a way to keep up with the battle.

Mechs as described by the OP do not work here because they overpower the role of infantry in an area where infantry are supposed to dominate. There's no reason to have regions where ground vehicles can't go if you then design a ground vehicle that can go there.
Actually they don't have to go where infantry go. MAX units already do that. Their bipedal feet really aren't that much better at going up hills than treads. It all comes down to balance.

1. They break the setting. Mechs are not science fiction they are science fantasy. There is no technological level at which mechs make more sense than other propulsion methods. Planetside hews closer than most seem to realize to hard Sci-fi and mechs are anything but that.
Can I get someone who is an actual science fiction fan to post. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecha) Seriously you sound like a troll making those kinds of statements.

2. Animating, programming, and implementing a mech is more expensive and less efficient than implementing a ground or air vehicle to fill the same role. Much like in real life, ironically enough.
You're a professional animator? T-Ray already said he's wanted to redo mechs for PS2. I think he understand how to animate them.

These are the kinds of arguments though that I like to see. Ones where people bring up problems that they see and they can be "solved".

Redshift

2011-10-10, 03:39 PM

Can I get someone who is an actual science fiction fan to post. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecha) Seriously you sound like a troll making those kinds of statements.

Actually someone has already posted in the thread way earlier explaning why Mechs would never seriously be considered more useful than tanks etc in reality

Xyntech

2011-10-10, 03:41 PM

Can I get someone who is an actual science fiction fan to post. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecha) Seriously you sound like a troll making those kinds of statements.

Well, he's right in the sense that walkers like in MechWarrior or Star Wars would never be practical fighting machines at any technological level. Even if you had the technology to make them, tanks would still be more practical.

Admittedly, some of the downsides of mechs would be diminished by the Planetside nanite system, such as difficulties in manufacturing and maintenance, but it still would probably be a pretty poor choice in a futuristic "real world" situation.

On the other hand, the whole "science fantasy" thing is a ridiculous argument. Planetside already features some pretty bullshit made up sci fi elements, so it is far from "hard core sci fi." Maybe mechs would stray a bit further out of the realism belt, but it would hardly be immersion breaking if PEW PEW lasher orbs and whatnot aren't.

Malorn

2011-10-10, 04:14 PM

T-Ray still wants them, and I'm confident in his ability to make change. (That and he sounded like he'd like to model them and bring them into the new PS2 style).

Also I've yet to see a solid argument against this thread. The only legit argument has been that a person doesn't like the chassis design. Other than that it's been a spew of irrational, as Vancha put it, comments. This community can do better than that.

There's lots of solid arguments in this thread. You don't see them because you don't want to see them.

You're on a personal crusade to add something to a game that only you really want. The one good thing about all this is the fact that you aren't on the PS2 team because you would absolutely ruin the game for your own little science fiction fantasy world. I'm pretty sure most of the community flipped the idiot bit on you a few hundred posts ago.

Sirisian

2011-10-10, 06:37 PM

Actually someone has already posted in the thread way earlier explaning why Mechs would never seriously be considered more useful than tanks etc in reality
Okay. Now go read about what fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction) means and science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction). Unless you're suggesting the game should play more like a military future simulation then I'll have to disagree. Though you wouldn't be alone if you made that argument.

Also as a side note I never said they'd be more useful than a tank. That's been the paranoid BFR haters in this thread. :doh:

There's lots of solid arguments in this thread. You don't see them because you don't want to see them.
And I've refuted all of them. Keep up.

You're on a personal crusade to add something to a game that only you really want.
Yes, I want PS2 to be a game that I'd enjoy. :rolleyes: The changes I've currently suggested would not degrade the gameplay of other players unless they feel so strongly against mechs that they can't play a game where one is featured.

I'm pretty sure most of the community flipped the idiot bit on you a few hundred posts ago.Just because I refuted your weak arguments doesn't mean you need to go on the attack. Just stay on topic please.

Also CutterJohn brought up a lot of good points. I wish more of the PSU community has his rational thinking toward chassis designs.

Redshift

2011-10-10, 06:59 PM

Okay. Now go read about what fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction) means and science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction). Unless you're suggesting the game should play more like a military future simulation then I'll have to disagree. Though you wouldn't be alone if you made that argument.

So i could go on a crusade to get a space laser that turns people blood into cheese included in the game? Or would that be farcical because it's unrealalistic? like any serious military deliberatly building shit vehicles?

Captain B

2011-10-10, 07:42 PM

Mechs as a concept do not work here for two primary reasons.
1. They break the setting. Mechs are not science fiction they are science fantasy. There is no technological level at which mechs make more sense than other propulsion methods. Planetside hews closer than most seem to realize to hard Sci-fi and mechs are anything but that.

But respawning and continuing to fight a war that thus cannot be won under any circumstance with an endless supply of continuously learning soldiers isn't fantasy?

I'm all about variety so long as it's balanced and fun. And since you'll still need to have the skill/cert tree trained up to get bigger vehicles (I'm sure, anyway), it still serves a purpose. "We need to assault that facility through the canyons and up the plateau." Treads and wheels may not be the most useful; that leaves MAXes and infantry and air. I like the difference between a MAX and a mech in the sense that if MAXes were too powerful they'd just crush everything in a tunnel/CQB setting, which they should definitely have the advantage in, but not be unstoppable without a tank or gunship attacking it. The mech provides that extra punch against enemy air or base defenses on the assault.

It's too bad; I may not have used 'em myself, but it would be cool seeing a few march along a bunch of infantry with air cover on a secluded facility.

Malorn

2011-10-10, 08:15 PM

You didn't refute shit sirisian. People stopped bothering arguing the point because they know logic and reason take to your delusional mind like oil takes to water.

Sirisian

2011-10-10, 08:29 PM

So i could go on a crusade to get a space laser that turns people blood into cheese included in the game?
That would be science fiction. I think you're getting the general idea. A good example would be to watch the really bad sci-fi movies and the stuff they come up with like that.

321

2011-10-10, 08:50 PM

You didn't refute shit sirisian. People stopped bothering arguing the point because they know logic and reason take to your delusional mind like oil takes to water.

^This.

Let Sirisian tremble at an Anti-Mech revolution. PS players have nothing to lose but mechs. They have a game to create.

PS players of all ISPs, unite!

PrISM

2011-10-10, 10:21 PM

I love how he keeps saying T-Ray will put them in the game as if he outranks the CEO.

CutterJohn

2011-10-10, 10:38 PM

1. They break the setting. Mechs are not science fiction they are science fantasy. There is no technological level at which mechs make more sense than other propulsion methods. Planetside hews closer than most seem to realize to hard Sci-fi and mechs are anything but that.

So is magical vanu hover tech. Pure sci fantasy. There is no physical phenomenon that could be used to explain its behavior. If you really want I could start listing off the completely illogical, irrational, and impossible things in PS1.. It would be quite an extensive list. PS is in no way a 'hard' sci fi game.

Mechs would be useful in situations where their added dexterity is necessary to negotiate terrain. They would not be overlords of the battlefield as mecharrior portrays them, but they would have niches in extreme terrain and urban environments.

2. Animating, programming, and implementing a mech is more expensive and less efficient than implementing a ground or air vehicle to fill the same role. Much like in real life, ironically enough.

This is valid criticism. Getting the legs to move right is important. Though I think you overestimate its difficulty. Mechwarrior 3 did this stuff properly 10 years ago.

Talek Krell

2011-10-10, 11:29 PM

Planetside already features some pretty bullshit made up sci fi elements, so it is far from "hard core sci fi." Maybe mechs would stray a bit further out of the realism belt, but it would hardly be immersion breaking if PEW PEW lasher orbs and whatnot aren't.So is magical vanu hover tech. Pure sci fantasy. There is no physical phenomenon that could be used to explain its behavior. See this is what I meant about Planetside being harder Sci-fi than a lot of people realize.
Lasher: Electrical charge bottled in a shaped magnetic field. Could be self-propelled or launched magnetically. Mag bottle will degrade over time and the charge will try to find it's way to ground through the most conductive route. And people are much better conductors than open air...
Magrider: Vectored thrust, electromagnetic repulsion, artificial/antigravity...
Mechs would be useful in situations where their added dexterity is necessary to negotiate terrain. They would not be overlords of the battlefield as mecharrior portrays them, but they would have niches in extreme terrain and urban environments.But they wouldn't! Think about it, in what sort of environment would this actually come into play? Give me an example. A pass so narrow tanks can't fit through? They'd have to be nothing but unusually slow and expensive max units. A mountainside so steep that a tank can't climb it? If your tank doesn't have the engine power to climb a slope then putting the engine into a mech isn't going to help anything. And then of course a rock shifts and the thing plummets. Urban warfare? Mechs would be even more vulnerable than tanks since they'd have to carry lighter armor and would be larger targets.

MasterChief096

2011-10-11, 12:00 AM

I'm not going to advocate mechs, but the whole, "its a shit vehicle for a military to use in the future" argument is pretty damn stupid.

Compare a vanguard, prowler, and magrider to a modern day abrams. The abrams wins, easily, from over a mile away if it wants to. Same goes for all the AA, and aircraft. Realism is very low in PlanetSide. Modern day AA systems would smoke the shit out of planetside aircraft from miles away. The only realistic thing about PlanetSide is the scale.

Captain B

2011-10-11, 12:02 AM

Still didn't answer the respawn/infinite soldier with no fear of death or consequence issue. :p

As far as examples, I've already given some:

1) Steep, narrow passes that tanks can't traverse and would have to detour significantly to reach. The mech could fit between the boulders and land formations that clutter the path or even jump on top of some of the smaller rocks (I said I didn't like flying or high jumping, but doesn't mean they can't propel themselves up a proportionate or slightly less than proportionate distance to a human). This would allow them to maneuver through such terrain with ease and maintain an appropriate speed with the other infantry.

2) As far as an urban environment, you'd be able to turn about and face your opponents quickly. Sure it's a bigger target, but smaller than tanks (or roughly the same size, especially if they can crouch and move). In fact, that right there is its advantage: it can provide close support of infantry with its bigger hull (than a MAX or just heavy infantry), but if you're flanked or ambushed in such confined spaces you can turn about and engage to the front armor as opposed to being a tank in a cramped alley going "well shit" before the big boom.

All vehicles are going to be vulnerable in such a situation, but if any vehicles are going to get the advantage it'd be something extremely fast like a buggy to zip through the streets, using hit-and-run tactics, or something on even pace with infantry that can lead the charge down a death corridor where its bulk can protect the squishies and suppress the enemy, or simply provide less support but still be viable where cover is available in sporadic locations and moving slowly through AV swept streets, covering advancing infantry with strafing quick bursts of AI fire to allow the infantry to kill the enemy AV before proceeding.

Talek Krell

2011-10-11, 12:46 AM

Still didn't answer the respawn/infinite soldier with no fear of death or consequence issue. :pI figured the fiction had covered that well enough. They're building the bodies at the atomic level using a stored reference and data/materials from nanite recycling of corpses in the field. They just have to be precise when making the neural network and the clone will effectively be the same person that just died. It's crazy tech, but they're borrowing it from a species that apparently built a planet.

1) Steep, narrow passes that tanks can't traverse and would have to detour significantly to reach. The mech could fit between the boulders and land formations that clutter the path or even jump on top of some of the smaller rocks (I said I didn't like flying or high jumping, but doesn't mean they can't propel themselves up a proportionate or slightly less than proportionate distance to a human). This would allow them to maneuver through such terrain with ease and maintain an appropriate speed with the other infantry.

2) As far as an urban environment, you'd be able to turn about and face your opponents quickly. Sure it's a bigger target, but smaller than tanks (or roughly the same size, especially if they can crouch and move). In fact, that right there is its advantage: it can provide close support of infantry with its bigger hull (than a MAX or just heavy infantry), but if you're flanked or ambushed in such confined spaces you can turn about and engage to the front armor as opposed to being a tank in a cramped alley going "well shit" before the big boom.
1)It depends on the size of the mech your talking about, but if it's anything significantly larger than an infantryman having to navigate that rough terrain without tipping would slow it down considerably. It would also have to do it under heavy fire given that the infantry and more conventional vehicles would probably be using the rocks for cover, thus making it the only available target. If it isn't significantly larger than an infantryman then it might work better, but it sounds more like an exosuit (which we already have) and I suspect it wouldn't fit Sirisian's rather strict definition of a mech.
2)Tanks do not turn that slowly. Mechs do not turn that quickly (it's harder than you'd think (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV0WNO1c_4I#t=01m35s)). In addition the armor has to be lighter in order to make the thing work which means that a tank might well have armor on it's back thicker than a mech has on it's front and will almost certainly expose fewer critical components. All of that also compromises it's ability to act as mobile cover, and if you scale it down until it can use cover itself then it's basically just a max again. The idea of having it crouch isn't that bad but it seems like it would be more sensible to just make a tank with a variable height turret.

Captain B

2011-10-11, 01:06 AM

I figured the fiction had covered that well enough. They're building the bodies at the atomic level using a stored reference and data/materials from nanite recycling of corpses in the field. They just have to be precise when making the neural network and the clone will effectively be the same person that just died. It's crazy tech, but they're borrowing it from a species that apparently built a planet.
Do you see where I find the inability to connect this explanation of high tech that can only be explained with "aliens did it"...

1)It depends on the size of the mech your talking about, but if it's anything significantly larger than an infantryman having to navigate that rough terrain without tipping would slow it down considerably. It would also have to do it under heavy fire given that the infantry and more conventional vehicles would probably be using the rocks for cover, thus making it the only available target. If it isn't significantly larger than an infantryman then it might work better, but it sounds more like an exosuit (which we already have) and I suspect it wouldn't fit Sirisian's rather strict definition of a mech.
2)Tanks do not turn that slowly. Mechs do not turn that quickly (it's harder than you'd think (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV0WNO1c_4I#t=01m35s)). In addition the armor has to be lighter in order to make the thing work which means that a tank might well have armor on it's back thicker than a mech has on it's front and will almost certainly expose fewer critical components. All of that also compromises it's ability to act as mobile cover, and if you scale it down until it can use cover itself then it's basically just a max again. The idea of having it crouch isn't that bad but it seems like it would be more sensible to just make a tank with a variable height turret.

to this?

It's like you're applying make believe in one hand and real world physics in the other, hehe. It's a sci-fi game that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Hell, look at the armor our heavies are wearing. You wouldn't be able to move in real life with that kind of gear on, and even if you could, it wouldn't guarantee to stop or even hinder the kind of power most of these weapons would exert. Great, it didn't breach the plate, but it vaporized my leg on the sub-atomic level or completely shattered it into pulp and dust.

It's just a game, after all. It can turn quicker than a tank or quicker than other mechs, real life prototypes or other game. It can crouch and jump well, and it can have armor to make it versatile and useful without making it unstoppable. It can because it's a game.

And who said we'd have to fit Sirisian's definition? Last I checked there were 20 pages in this thread with a lot of input from people for and against mechs. I think we should keep it open-minded so that when it does happen (and let's face it, it will eventually) it's done right.

Xyntech

2011-10-11, 03:57 AM

Sirisian does come off as a little fanatical and obsessed with the mechs, but not nearly as fanatical or obsessed as some of the people against them.

He is not a troll. He is discussing something that he thinks could be successfully put into Planetside 2. There is no reason to attack him personally if you disagree with him.

It's not like he is suggesting something too far out of the realm of possibility either, like cheese rays or whatever. Planetside has always had MAX armor. Planetside 1 got BFR's. One of the developers of PS2 has stated an interest in revisiting the subject, to get it right this time.

Mechs aren't something that is high on my personal wish list, but if and when they do put mechs into this game, I want them to get it right, I applaud Sirisian for making a thread on that subject.

The biggest failings of BFR's were not the fact that they had legs. But this has already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.

Talek Krell

2011-10-11, 04:30 AM

Do you see where I find the inability to connect this explanation of high tech that can only be explained with "aliens did it"...Not really, no. The planet is practically crawling with nanites, the nanites work as previously described. The aliens had to be the ones to set it up, if it had been the humans the whole story would have collapsed.
And who said we'd have to fit Sirisian's definition.No one. It's just a side effect of having to argue with multiple people simultaneously. That said "mech" does usually refer to a large, stompy vehicle. You were after the avatar suits if I recall, and that's more along the lines of a heavy exo-suit.
It's like you're applying make believe in one hand and real world physics in the other, hehe. It's a sci-fi game that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Hell, look at the armor our heavies are wearing. You wouldn't be able to move in real life with that kind of gear on. Those are exo-suits. They use motors to assist user movement, allowing infantry to use armor and weapons that they'd normally be unable to lift. In terms of whether mechs are realistic it's not a matter of whether they'll become feasible. It is whether they'll become effective enough that they'd be chosen for production over competing designs for their role.

If you'd prefer to argue from a gameplay standpoint then that's fine. I do ask that you stick to it, I'm getting tired of people skipping around. As you've observed the model of a vehicle is unimportant gameplay wise. Assuming no budget issues, there's no reason it can't be a mech. There's also no reason it should be a mech, though, so that works both ways. If you want something implemented, then you'll need two things that I can think of:
Role: You need a purpose for what you're making. Function first, then form. If I've understood correctly what you want is an ultralight vehicle to operate in what would otherwise be an infantry/MAX fight. I'm not convinced we need that, I like the idea of having some outdoor fights center on infantry and air.
Theme: This is where the realism argument becomes relevant. Planetside has a relatively practical design theme to it, and I don't feel mechs (via the wiki definition) fit that. Now provided the niche I described does need to be filled, something like the avatar suits would probably work well for it, and do so without violating the theme. They're functioning as ultra-heavy infantry, so it's reasonable that they would essentially be an overgrown exo-suit. Make it look stocky and thickly armored to protect all the servos and electronics it would need to keep upright, with a low center of gravity so it feels stable. Have it move at about infantry speed and give it equipment intended to support an infantry advance.

Traak

2011-10-11, 04:48 AM

So, Mechs that didn't have magical fairy-like abilities far exceeding anything else in the game would be more acceptable? I can see that not being too bad.

But waving the wand of ridiculous invulnerability over BFR's helped ruin the game. Ooh! You can't shoot me with big weapons, because my magical regenerating fairy dust shield protects meeee! And I can leeeap away from harm faster and higher than almost anything in the game, hehehehehehe!

LOL I wonder if they expected 90 percent of the playerbase to cert mechs?

CutterJohn

2011-10-11, 06:27 AM

Lasher: Electrical charge bottled in a shaped magnetic field.

There is no physical phenomenon that can explain a self perpetuating magnetic field, nor one that would be stable outside of some controlling apparatus.

Fantasy.

Mag bottle will degrade over time and the charge will try to find it's way to ground through the most conductive route. And people are much better conductors than open air...

Enemies refuse to add a tiny bit of metal to the outside of their suits that leads to ground, since conductive metals are much better conductors than people.

Illogical.

The fantasy mag bottle completely lacks any mechanism to determine friend from foe, yet it not only does so with 100% accuracy, it even detects enemy cloakers that high technology gizmos are barely capable of.

Fantasy stacked on top of Fantasy.

Magrider: Vectored thrust, electromagnetic repulsion, artificial/antigravity...

1. No thrusters visible on model. Would be the most fantastically inefficient method of land vehicle propulsion ever devised, and FOD would destroy the thrusters in short order. Irrational.

2. Relies on something superconducting to repulse against. Fantasy.

3. There are no known or theorized methods of accomplishing this. Fantasy.

1)It depends on the size of the mech your talking about, but if it's anything significantly larger than an infantryman having to navigate that rough terrain without tipping would slow it down considerably.

We *know* we it is possible to make machines that are incredibly agile and have incredible endurance, can turn fast, don't trip all that often, and aren't helpless when they do trip. We know this for the same reason we knew flight was possible.. There are plenty of examples of complex biological machines doing exactly that.

2)Tanks do not turn that slowly. Mechs do not turn that quickly (it's harder than you'd think (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV0WNO1c_4I#t=01m35s)).

Yeah, early generation robots, still in there infancy. Shall I bring out a video of some early aircraft, cars, tanks, etc and use those for examples of why the technology will never work?

Captain B

2011-10-11, 08:14 AM

Well, CutterJohn nailed it.

It is interesting though that mechs could be awesome in a few centuries from now on a planet where magi- nanites are everywhere, and yet tanks are still the same damn treads since the 20th century.

Minus VS's hover vehicles, which clearly relied on aliens thinking outside the box on that one.

Talek Krell

2011-10-11, 12:32 PM

Fantasy stacked on top of Fantasy.Look as fascinating as it would be to dig through research journals to try and determine exactly how a Lasher might work, I have more topic-relevant concerns. If you want to keep with the realism thing then entertain yourself with this while I talk with CB.
In terms of whether mechs are realistic it's not a matter of whether they'll become feasible. It is whether they'll become effective enough that they'd be chosen for production over competing designs for their role.

Well, CutterJohn nailed it.So you're going to skip back to the realism argument then? It's kind of a shame, because for a while I thought the thread might actually become productive.

Redshift

2011-10-11, 12:49 PM

CutterJohn

2011-10-11, 02:14 PM

Look as fascinating as it would be to dig through research journals to try and determine exactly how a Lasher might work, I have more topic-relevant concerns. If you want to keep with the realism thing then entertain yourself with this while I talk with CB.

The only thing I could said to be arguing is bad logic. I really don't care if mechs are in or not. Pretty ambivalent about the subject. People bring up BFRs? I point out that graphics has nothing to do with balance. People bring up realism? I point out PS is chock full of fantasy. People bring up technical issues regarding the legs? Inverse kinematics is pretty mature tech. Like as not its already implemented on the infantry in order to make their feet fall correctly on slopes(and if its not it should be).

Stop making bad arguments in order to justify the fact that you just don't like them. But if you just don't like them because of a bad argument, perhaps you should reconsider.

i still don't see an actual role for them though

I see no role for treads. They do nothing wheels can't do.

Xyntech

2011-10-11, 02:37 PM

Mechs aren't in at launch. Confirmed. However, mechs are still a possibility at some point in Planetside 2's future.

A lot of valid arguments have been made in this thread, along with a lot of senseless ones. I don't see this subject getting any further right now though.

Maybe we should shelve this until after launch, or at least until beta arrives. Then we can see what the game play in PS2 is like and whether or not there is a valuable role that some certain type of mech could fill.

Redshift

2011-10-11, 02:59 PM

I see no role for treads. They do nothing wheels can't do.

P=F/A i taught that to 13 year olds last week, they seemed to work out why treads exist

on a similar note i wonder how fat you'd have to make a mechs feet for it not to sink

Malorn

2011-10-11, 04:06 PM

Mechs aren't in at launch. Confirmed. However, mechs are still a possibility at some point in Planetside 2's future.

No repeats of PS1's failures, thanks. Game will be perfectly great without mechs. Unnecessary. Dumb. Fail.

Reliability is important, so is resiliency. Mechs fail for both due to having large surface area and a lot of moving parts. A tank has a small surface area allowing thick armor and protection to its vulnerable parts. A mech cannot have such things and realistically just about any damage to any part of its legs, waist, and torso will lead to disabling it. It is also a higher, easier target while tanks keep a low profile and can be easily hidden. One hit and a mech will be disabled while a tank is much less likely to be hit and more likely to survive it due to thicker armor, smaller frame, and surfaces that will help deflect. And BFRs had the same issues - huge frame, easy targets. To make them not entirely suck they had to add that shield crap. Without the shields BFRs would have been easily destroyed, just like a real mech would have.

Giant robots are cool for kids. But they aren't practical in the real world. Never have been. Never will be. PS2 is a fantasy world but lets keep it plausible. If you want giant anime robots there's plenty of places you can go for that. Don't ruin PS2 with that crap.

MAX units are practical and provide additional protection in a small size and allow infantry-sized deployment of heavy weapons platforms that a normal human can't carry. Basically MAX are small indoor tanks or the future of squad-level heavy weapons teams. Making them bigger negates the purpose and exacerbates the mech issues. They're the perfect size and have an important role and the closest thing we should ever get to "mechs" in planetside 2.

Most people get this. Shame for a few idiots to ruin it for the rest of the planetside community.

Talek Krell

2011-10-11, 04:20 PM

Maybe we should shelve this until after launch, or at least until beta arrives. Then we can see what the game play in PS2 is like and whether or not there is a valuable role that some certain type of mech could fill.I'd like to +1 this. If the game launches and it turns out that there's some role where feet would be indispensable then the matter can be re-opened, but until then it's just trying to build something from the sky down and that doesn't tend to work well.

CutterJohn

2011-10-12, 02:15 AM

P=F/A i taught that to 13 year olds last week, they seemed to work out why treads exist

on a similar note i wonder how fat you'd have to make a mechs feet for it not to sink

Last I checked they weren't bothering checking that in the game, so treads are unnecessary eye candy. nothing else.

And 1 square foot per 2 tons would keep it around 30 psi ground pressure, same as the average horse.

No repeats of PS1's failures, thanks. Game will be perfectly great without mechs. Unnecessary. Dumb. Fail.

Great. Can we ditch all the other failures too?

Reliability is important, so is resiliency. Mechs fail for both due to having large surface area and a lot of moving parts. A tank has a small surface area allowing thick armor and protection to its vulnerable parts. A mech cannot have such things and realistically just about any damage to any part of its legs, waist, and torso will lead to disabling it. It is also a higher, easier target while tanks keep a low profile and can be easily hidden. One hit and a mech will be disabled while a tank is much less likely to be hit and more likely to survive it due to thicker armor, smaller frame, and surfaces that will help deflect. And BFRs had the same issues - huge frame, easy targets. To make them not entirely suck they had to add that shield crap. Without the shields BFRs would have been easily destroyed, just like a real mech would have.

Comparing a vehicle with one role to a vehicle with another, and using that as evidence of it sucking. Dumb. Fail. You know what else sucks as a tank? Everything that is not a tank.

Giant robots are cool for kids. But they aren't practical in the real world. Never have been. Never will be. PS2 is a fantasy world but lets keep it plausible. If you want giant anime robots there's plenty of places you can go for that. Don't ruin PS2 with that crap.

Railguns, plasma guns, miniguns a soldier carries around, shotguns issued as an empires best weapon, tanks that shoot mortars instead of real cannon, etc, etc, etc, are cool for kids. But they aren't practical in the real world. PS2 is a fantasy world, but lets keep it plausible.

MAX units are practical and provide additional protection in a small size and allow infantry-sized deployment of heavy weapons platforms that a normal human can't carry. Basically MAX are small indoor tanks or the future of squad-level heavy weapons teams. Making them bigger negates the purpose and exacerbates the mech issues. They're the perfect size and have an important role and the closest thing we should ever get to "mechs" in planetside 2.

Max is a dumb design. Traded mobility for armor, for some reason was made incapable of taking care of itself or doing anything other than shoot.

Most people get this. Shame for a few idiots to ruin it for the rest of the planetside community.

I don't think you grasp the meaning of 'ruin'. "Shame for a few people with different tastes for fantasy sci fi to slightly annoy a majority, but definitely not all, of the community."

I'd like to +1 this. If the game launches and it turns out that there's some role where feet would be indispensable then the matter can be re-opened, but until then it's just trying to build something from the sky down and that doesn't tend to work well.

There is no role where feet are indispensable in a video game. All vehicles could be featureless blocks sliding along the ground with no graphical representation of what moves it and it would not affect gameplay one iota.

Just say you don't like it. It really is a lot easier than continually coming up with terrible logic.

Redshift

2011-10-12, 05:40 AM

Last I checked they weren't bothering checking that in the game, so treads are unnecessary eye candy. nothing else.
I heard we have physics in PS2, i imagine tracks will make a difference.

And 1 square foot per 2 tons would keep it around 30 psi ground pressure, same as the average horse.

or a humvee pulling a wheely? you'd sink in mud easily, not sure there's many places legs would be advantageous

There is no role where feet are indispensable in a video game. All vehicles could be featureless blocks sliding along the ground with no graphical representation of what moves it and it would not affect gameplay one iota.

You seem to be going back on your own point here, if you're saying it doesn't matter how things are designed then why bother making something that takes extra time and money; looks out of place and has a huge stigma attached to it?

SKYeXile

2011-10-12, 06:03 AM

How did i miss this thread...this is gold...somebody sum up pages 2-20 for me though.

Traak

2011-10-12, 06:36 AM

Okay.

I want Mechs. Not BFR's.

No. We don't want them.

But, they could be balanced...

We don't want them anyway.

2coolforu

2011-10-12, 07:17 AM

Mechs will never, ever exist in the military. Ever.

I'm sorry but it's a fact, I won't be alive long enough to prove it but a mech in the style of the ones that grace anime constantly just aren't practical for warfare. It's a simple matter of logic

Here's a mech
____
| |
| |
| |
|__|

Here's a vehicle

____________
|___________|

The vehicle presents one generic unit ^2 area to the enemy, the mech presents 4 generic area ^2 to the enemy. That's four times the area to armor which means your mech either has shitty armor compared to a tank or any other vehicle of the same class or it sinks into the ground and doesn't move. It's also far more complex to make a bipedal robot than a tracked/wheeled vehicle, it presents a taller target, legs are extremely large and obvious targets, if it loses power a bipedal robot would just fall over as two legs aren't really the best for stability.

A mech would be a quadruped rather than bipedal simply for stability which would make it even more complex, it would also be unlikely for it to be used in a military application instead it would probably be used in industry, heavy lifting or exploration of dangerous areas (Other worlds?).

The point is every role a mech could take is filled with another vehicle that can do it far better and is less restricted by the laws of physics. Fast, maneuverable support? Getting areas tanks can't reach? A fricking attack helicopter does that better, can do it from farther away, can do it faster and can do it better. Supporting infantry in urban environments? Urban environments are where vehicles go to die, a mech would fair even less well as it would have to be underarmored due to the greater surface area, if it was a bipedal mech it would also be underpowered due to the increased recoil from the poor centre of gravity and larger moment of force around it, it's also a role that can be filled by the IFV which can also carry the infantry and travel extremely quickly with wheels or tracks.

As for huge mechs meant to be 'supertanks' the arguments have already been made, the machinery would be horrendous (huge amounts of pressure acting totally through the bipedal legs/quadrupedal legs), terrible ground pressure, huge target and poor armor compared to a tank that did the same job. If Military History has taught us anything it's that relying on 'Mothership' style ridiculously giant death units is a terrible idea, it's a lot easier to blow something up than it is to armor it up. The thousand-dollar body armor the best equipped troops in the world have can be defeated by some muppet with a $5 somalian AK-47, the Battleship was retired because it was this huge, expensive power statement that could be taken out by a single cruise missile or even a lucky torpedo.

The only mechs we will likely see are exo-suits for the common infantry. This is because they scale pretty well to small sizes however anything large enough to be classed as an IFV/Tank just loses out to increase in surface area and other drawbacks. We are already seeing strength-augmenting exo-suits in creation, and they are in Planetside in the form of the common infantryman and MAX suit.

I don't care whether or not they get put into Planetside 2, I know a lot of people like the aesthetic of mech units. Personally I think they look retarded but that's just me, if it makes a larger % happier than it does make a % upset then throw them in. But the problem is the role people typically see mechs occupy leads them to being overpowered, they are generally just scaled up infantry given the power of a tank which is the ultimate recipe for OP and shitty gameplay. Seeing as the fanbase already harbors a bad taste from the BFR's it's probably best to leave them out.

CutterJohn

2011-10-12, 08:05 AM

You seem to be going back on your own point here, if you're saying it doesn't matter how things are designed then why bother making something that takes extra time and money; looks out of place and has a huge stigma attached to it?

Indeed. Why bother with meshes and normal mapping and shaders. We could have box wireframes, and the gameplay would be exactly the same. Wheels cost extra time and money. Treads cost extra time and money. Hovering? Extra time and money. Animations? Extra time and money.

Time and money will be spent on making things look cool. Not everyone agrees that mechs are not cool. Anyone who thinks there is a 'stigma' against them is far too obsessed with BFRs.

Redshift

2011-10-12, 08:56 AM

Indeed. Why bother with meshes and normal mapping and shaders. We could have box wireframes, and the gameplay would be exactly the same. Wheels cost extra time and money. Treads cost extra time and money. Hovering? Extra time and money. Animations? Extra time and money.

Time and money will be spent on making things look cool. Not everyone agrees that mechs are not cool. Anyone who thinks there is a 'stigma' against them is far too obsessed with BFRs.

If you're going to be a prick there's no point in posting.

Mechs are harder to animate than tanks, tanks look exactly the same on a hill as they do on the flat. Mechs to be done properly need animated ankles and knees so they remain upright on uneven ground, if you don't bother you get them looking like the alphelion used to, i.e running up a hill bent over to 45 degrees.

Mechs require more time form an art team also since they have more surface area.

They're leaving out boarding animations because they don't want to spend the cash on animation and painting the insides of the vehicles. Why would they spend that cash they don't have on mechs which, have no defined role and a stigma attached?

2coolforu

2011-10-12, 09:27 AM

I see no role for treads. They do nothing wheels can't do.

Mud, slopes, traction.

EDIT: Effectively wheels are extremely good on pre-fab surfaces like Tarmac and compacted roads but suck in a Somme style warzone which is where tracks excel, I don't think a mech would do too well in a muddy, sloped field.

Sirisian

2011-10-12, 11:05 AM

I think the best argument is just to say they look rediculous, well they look rediculous unless you through tonnes of cash at them.
remember bfr's walking across uneven ground or up a hill? tall vehicles just look silly when they're spose to fall over but dont.
If your best argument is that SOE will screw up the physics like they did 7 years ago that's a big assumption.

I don't care whether or not they get put into Planetside 2, I know a lot of people like the aesthetic of mech units. Personally I think they look retarded but that's just me, if it makes a larger % happier than it does make a % upset then throw them in.
I'm not sure that's right. I'd always assumed more people hated the look of mechs than liked them. Can't really find anything to back up either opinion though.

Mechs are harder to animate than tanks, tanks look exactly the same on a hill as they do on the flat. Mechs to be done properly need animated ankles and knees so they remain upright on uneven ground, if you don't bother you get them looking like the alphelion used to, i.e running up a hill bent over to 45 degrees.

Mechs require more time form an art team also since they have more surface area.
Really didn't want to go into stuff like that. I've always found it a bit of a fool's argument to say the reason you don't want something is because it takes time. Anything added to the game takes time away from other things so it's a bit of a no-brainer if you don't like it then it's taking time away from something else you want.

Also a well animated tank has a tread with basic suspension physics. Personally I find it odd when a tank's treads don't line up with the terrain. The same would be true for a mech. (I try not to go into the technical details. I've programmed for a while so I know the basics of inverse kinematics so such a thing as aligning a mech's foot given constraints to terrain doesn't seem unreasonably difficult, but it does take time for a person that's never done it).

[debating realism arguments]
I don't think you need to go into those kinds of areas. It's a video game not an engineering simulation. I tend to ignore those arguments since they seem like the bottom of the bucket arguments. CutterJohn already killed that argument with the analogy to Lashers though.

CutterJohn

2011-10-12, 12:03 PM

If you're going to be a prick there's no point in posting.

Mechs are harder to animate than tanks, tanks look exactly the same on a hill as they do on the flat. Mechs to be done properly need animated ankles and knees so they remain upright on uneven ground, if you don't bother you get them looking like the alphelion used to, i.e running up a hill bent over to 45 degrees.

Mechs require more time form an art team also since they have more surface area.

Depends on what technology they have implemented in the game engine. From looking at the screenshots, I think, but cannot say for certain, that infantry have inverse kinematics controlling their animations so that their feet plant firmly on the ground. There are no images of infantry on a heavy slope, so I cannot be sure. This is a common feature in games, and has been for years. I would not be surprised if the engine was capable of such.

If its not, or if their implementation is not easily converted to non human layouts(Given this engine was developed for a fantasy MMO, I doubt they would overlook this), you are correct that implementing it for one vehicle would be an absurd waste of time, and I would not want to see mechs with simple keyframed animations. Do it right or not at all.

They're leaving out boarding animations because they don't want to spend the cash on animation and painting the insides of the vehicles. Why would they spend that cash they don't have on mechs which, have no defined role and a stigma attached?

Obviously they won't. I just enjoy pointing out how absurd that stigma is. :D

Redshift

2011-10-12, 12:58 PM

If your best argument is that SOE will screw up the physics like they did 7 years ago that's a big assumption.

Really didn't want to go into stuff like that. I've always found it a bit of a fool's argument to say the reason you don't want something is because it takes time. Anything added to the game takes time away from other things so it's a bit of a no-brainer if you don't like it then it's taking time away from something else you want.

It's not the physic i was on about it's the animation, if you don't animate them properly they look stupid, and you notice things like that more on tall vehices.

The reason i mentioned time and money is because these mechs as they've been suggested don't add anything to the game, they don't do anything that a tank can't, and since they serve no purpose adding them is wasting money, if SOE suddenly find themselves swimming in cash maybe they will add extra stuff thats not really needed but considering how many staff they've laid off recently i doubt they will.

Obviously they won't. I just enjoy pointing out how absurd that stigma is. :D
Stigma isn't suppose to be rational, thats why it's stigma, and not fact.

CutterJohn

2011-10-12, 01:46 PM

Stigma isn't suppose to be rational, thats why it's stigma, and not fact.

I'm well aware. The mental gymnastics people are using as justification of their stigma are interesting.

Xyntech

2011-10-12, 05:54 PM

Let's also not forget the fact that there will hopefully be no BFR stigma for the majority of Planetside 2 players.

I say hopefully, because in an ideal situation, there will be a lot more newcomers to Planetside 2 than there will be PS1 veterans.

I'm hoping a lot of the people from PS1 come back for PS2, but I'm also hoping for a lot more players than PS1 ever had. That would mean a lot of people who don't even know what a BFR is.

Now that doesn't say anything about a stigma against the aesthetic idea of mechs, but BFR's have a lot more stigma than just their aesthetics, even if some of the strongest stigma is still rooted in a dislike of the idea of mechs in general.

Since mechs aren't even a possibility until after the game launches, I guess we'll have more of those new voices to contribute to the debate once it really matters.

Wahooo

2011-10-12, 07:52 PM

How did i miss this thread...this is gold...somebody sum up pages 2-20 for me though.

"Hey I want Mechs in PS2 here's a poll"

"We don't want BFRs, see poll resuts"

"Not BFRs... Mechs!"

"They look like BFRs, we don't want those, see poll results."

"But they aren't BFRs... why don't you get how awsome this idea is."

"We understand the idea, we just don't like it, see poll results"

"I'm not talking about BFR's, but Mechs... totally different"

"Same thing really we don't want them, see poll results"

"well maybe sometime after release we can have them 'cause T-ray who also likes quick knives, headshots, blood splatter and other crap PS1 vets don't like says they're cool."

exLupo

2011-10-13, 04:44 AM

Part of me is surprised that this thread is still rolling but, really, this is only the first of thousands that will pop up over the years of PS2's life. Mechs are cool. Not for everybody but there's a huge following to the idea, no matter how absurd the reality would be.

It doesn't change the fact that if it looks like a BFR and quacks like a BFR, it's a BFR as far as the built-in PS1 fanbase is concerned.

Know something that I like? The word "niggardly". It rolls off the tongue well and is a nice alternative to "miserly". However, it sounds a whole lot like a word that, in western society, is a pretty big taboo. Feel free to say it out loud right now and see if you get any looks or if anyone cringes. Collateral damage in the greater social psyche. BFRs did fantastic damage to PS1 and are anathema. The collateral damage is that we'll never have mechs in PS2.

These threads will come and go but PSU regulars know better than this. Let it die.

SKYeXile

2011-10-13, 05:39 AM

I think people need to put aside their hated with BFR's and their implementation in PS1, its very obvious they were EXTREMELY broken in PS1, certainly at their release, but they also changed the dynamics of battle, the hold lines better than anything else in the game and require focus firing to takedown or even force a retreat. We dont want BFR's in PS2, thats for certain.

If think they could work in PS2, provided they're not master of all like they are in PS with the flick of a button or 2. i think if they had:

no regenerating shields.
a much smaller profile, still bigger than maxes.
had a hard counter, im going to say aircraft(with no option for AA) put a massive weakspot in their back, the mech could have a 360deg swivel torso so it could hide this from whoever it wants but it would be highly prone to a aircraft straif, or any AV shot to the rear.
since its single man, it could not have anywhere near asmuch HP as MBT, i would say 50-60%. of a tanks HP.

hrmm actually they still sound gay...forget i said anything...im gonna go with no mechs in PS2.

2coolforu

2011-10-13, 12:12 PM

The point is not that they are hated purely due to BFR's, a lot of people dislike the aesthetic they have associated with them; myself included. It's also due to the fundamental tropes generally associated with mechs, the way they exist in all fiction and games is as basically the main force/elite force of an army yet this role does not exist in Planetside. There is no such thing as an 'uber' weapon that is simply good for no other reason than 'Rule of Cool', the fundamental tenet of Planetside is that everything has a rock/paper/scissors role and fundamentally that multiple people working together to fill one role should always defeat solo players also filling that role or at the very least give extra diversity.

We don't NEED a one man vehicle, all a mech would add is a lightning with more diversity. The one man vehicle already exists in the shape of ATV's and Lightnings which sacrifice mainstay combat ability for the ability to fire and drive. The only thing that makes the mechs have any reason to be in the game is to shoehorn in some form of customization, yet we already have this in the shape of locked down vehicle upgrades, we also have weak spots (rear armor etc) and its clear that all main vehicles like MBT's and Galaxies are still limited to being effective in one defined role regardless of upgrades whereas the mechs have the ability to use AA/AV/AT, fly etc which is just stupidly diverse and ends up in role overlap and boring gameplay where every vehicle on the battlefield is the same thing with either swapped out AT/AV or AA unlike the true combined ops battles that relied on teamwork and not just swapping out your own weapons depending on whether another mech, aircraft or infantry killed you.

There isn't a role in the game for a one manned mech.

Xyntech

2011-10-13, 03:45 PM

There isn't a role in the game for a one manned mech.

There isn't a role for half the stuff that was in Planetside if you shuffle things around a little.

I'm not saying they should make a niche for mechs to fill, just that they could if they wanted to.

Why have snipers? Just give rifles a scope and make them awesome at long range. HA up close, rifles at range. Perfect.

Why have a lightning? Just make MBT's able to be driven and gunned by the same person (oh wait...).

Why have Skyguards? We already have AA MAXes and our own aircraft to shoot down planes.

Why have medics? Just let everyone be able to patch each other up with improved med packs.

Why have a Sunderer? A Galaxy can fly. What kind of mad man would want to drive a bunch of people somewhere when they can FLY them there?

Game balance will always be somewhat arbitrary. You can combine a bunch of roles into one, or divide one role into many. You can have two different units who's roles have some overlap, but do it a little differently.

Again, this speaks nothing to whether or not a mech should be worked into the game balance, only that it could be.

2coolforu

2011-10-14, 02:26 AM

There isn't a role for half the stuff that was in Planetside if you shuffle things around a little.

I'm not saying they should make a niche for mechs to fill, just that they could if they wanted to.

Why have snipers? Just give rifles a scope and make them awesome at long range. HA up close, rifles at range. Perfect.

Why have a lightning? Just make MBT's able to be driven and gunned by the same person (oh wait...).

Why have Skyguards? We already have AA MAXes and our own aircraft to shoot down planes.

Why have medics? Just let everyone be able to patch each other up with improved med packs.

Why have a Sunderer? A Galaxy can fly. What kind of mad man would want to drive a bunch of people somewhere when they can FLY them there?

Game balance will always be somewhat arbitrary. You can combine a bunch of roles into one, or divide one role into many. You can have two different units who's roles have some overlap, but do it a little differently.

Again, this speaks nothing to whether or not a mech should be worked into the game balance, only that it could be.

Your post makes no sense, snipers are long range and rifles were medium range (FYI it's in the name); Heavy assault was close range (corridor), Medium was medium range (Courtyard) and sniper was long range (cross-SOI). The lethality also scaled with their role as well, HA was the most lethal whereas the bolt driver was easily avoidable given enough experience of the game as it was a supression weapon other than anything else.

With the lightning your point is just vapid, a lighting is the sacrifice you make for having a solo vehicle. It's lightly armored and lightly armed, 3 couldn't take down an MBT of 2 gunners. That's the whole idea of Planetside.

AA MAX and Skyguard? Ever heard of towers? What happened when you went to a new continent and you had to hold a tower as your first spawn point, pretty hard to get a vehicle there right? So we had the AA MAX which had zero mobility but you could pull one out of an equip term during an infantry battle, skyguard was for covering armored vehicles jesus christ, this is basic stuff.

Medics were there to revive and to heal, you couldn't heal in any reasonable amount of time with medipacks and medics are another teamplay gimmick designed to stop solo/CoD style one man armies who just regenerate their health in a few seconds.

As for the Sunderer, count how many dropship centres there are on the map. Sometimes you can sacrifice travelling as the crow flies and 30kph just to get quick and easy transport.

As for single person fully customisable mechs, what the hell role do they fill? A single man AA mech, well doesn't the skyguard do this fine and dandy without having scary role overlap? Don't we have the MAX for this? Swapping out with AV/AI also yields the same arguments. Not only that but the idea in Planetside and, from what I know, the general idea in basically everything centered around mechs is that they are just better tanks. In every movie, show and game they are portrayed as being faster, stronger, more versatile, more capable and better armed than every other vehicle on the battlefield and MBT's typically pose less of a threat to mechs than infantry do to modern armor currently.

Point is when something is so heavily troped in fiction, like mechs for example, people and developers design them around the trope. The entire aesthetic of a mech is that they are these uberunits, unfortunately there's no room in Planetside or any FPS for an 'uberunit' that's simply better than everything else.

SKYeXile

2011-10-14, 03:26 AM

Your post makes no sense, snipers are long range and rifles were medium range (FYI it's in the name); Heavy assault was close range (corridor), Medium was medium range (Courtyard) and sniper was long range (cross-SOI). The lethality also scaled with their role as well, HA was the most lethal whereas the bolt driver was easily avoidable given enough experience of the game as it was a supression weapon other than anything else.

With the lightning your point is just vapid, a lighting is the sacrifice you make for having a solo vehicle. It's lightly armored and lightly armed, 3 couldn't take down an MBT of 2 gunners. That's the whole idea of Planetside.

AA MAX and Skyguard? Ever heard of towers? What happened when you went to a new continent and you had to hold a tower as your first spawn point, pretty hard to get a vehicle there right? So we had the AA MAX which had zero mobility but you could pull one out of an equip term during an infantry battle, skyguard was for covering armored vehicles jesus christ, this is basic stuff.

Medics were there to revive and to heal, you couldn't heal in any reasonable amount of time with medipacks and medics are another teamplay gimmick designed to stop solo/CoD style one man armies who just regenerate their health in a few seconds.

As for the Sunderer, count how many dropship centres there are on the map. Sometimes you can sacrifice travelling as the crow flies and 30kph just to get quick and easy transport.

As for single person fully customisable mechs, what the hell role do they fill? A single man AA mech, well doesn't the skyguard do this fine and dandy without having scary role overlap? Don't we have the MAX for this? Swapping out with AV/AI also yields the same arguments. Not only that but the idea in Planetside and, from what I know, the general idea in basically everything centered around mechs is that they are just better tanks. In every movie, show and game they are portrayed as being faster, stronger, more versatile, more capable and better armed than every other vehicle on the battlefield and MBT's typically pose less of a threat to mechs than infantry do to modern armor currently.

Point is when something is so heavily troped in fiction, like mechs for example, people and developers design them around the trope. The entire aesthetic of a mech is that they are these uberunits, unfortunately there's no room in Planetside or any FPS for an 'uberunit' that's simply better than everything else.

his post does make sense, reading comprehension fail on your part. you missed "There isn't a role for half the stuff that was in Planetside if you shuffle things around a little." you then read him shuffling things around.

Mechs dont have to be uberunits though, no reason they could not be as powerful as a lightning or aircraft.

Captain1nsaneo

2011-10-14, 04:07 AM

22 pages... really?

So one man mechs, ever seen a wolverine from C&C? Basically a slightly taller MAX. Make them bigger, slower MAXs with armor akin to a lightning and no special abilities. They'll be used about as often as lightnings as they'll be obvious targets and lack the ability to cope with anything they're not specialized for. Can't see them as a good use of Dev time.

BFRs: The goal for BFRs was to create a Heavy Battle Tank (HBT). They succeeded. However, in doing so they broke two very important rules when introducing powerful weapons into a fairly balance environment. First, the new super weapon must be limited in who can get it. BFRs could be gotten by anyone and there was no limit to how many could be fielded at once. They attempted to limit through cert cost but that's just a paper barrier. Second, all powerful tools must take several people to operate. Think about it, MBTs take 2-3 people to crew, a BFR took just 1. This more than anything caused massive imbalance.

If walkers were to be looked at again I'd take the above into consideration along with survivability. Survivability isn't just HP and Shields. It's how fast battle can be joined and left. Quick example, the Gunship is massively powerful, takes a good sized crew to man, and requires a dropship center. Despite its massive health it currently is fairly balanced because the large number of people requires to man one prevents their mass use. However, when first released it had afterburners. The Gunship is slow and AB didn't help its top speed much, but it did help with its acceleration. The ability to get up to full speed quickly drastically increased the Gunships survivability making it much more powerful then it should optimally be. The AB has been removed and the Gunship is now much closer to being balanced as its survivability has dropped.

If I were asked to help design any new HBT, first I'd point to the Baneblade. Huge slow tank that takes a squad to fully man. Failing that I'd point to how Titans are managed, a person for weapons, a person for steering, and a person to control shields and direct power. Either way, as long as the ideas of limitation, more power more people, and survivability are adhered to whatever is produced will at least land on the dart board.

2coolforu

2011-10-14, 08:54 AM

The galaxy gunship is balanced?

Sirisian

2011-10-14, 10:54 AM

The only thing that makes the mechs have any reason to be in the game is to shoehorn in some form of customization, yet we already have this in the shape of locked down vehicle upgrades, we also have weak spots (rear armor etc) and its clear that all main vehicles like MBT's and Galaxies are still limited to being effective in one defined role regardless of upgrades whereas the mechs have the ability to use AA/AV/AT, fly etc which is just stupidly diverse and ends up in role overlap and boring gameplay where every vehicle on the battlefield is the same thing with either swapped out AT/AV or AA unlike the true combined ops battles that relied on teamwork and not just swapping out your own weapons depending on whether another mech, aircraft or infantry killed you.
I agree with that mentality about customization overload. My initial post was thinking in terms of introducing AA/AV/AI through the forms of different weapons. For instance, AV as medium rate heavy caliber rifles (micro cannons essentially) on the arms or AI as targeted mortar shells on the shoulders. Been wondering if such features are too much, and part of me says they are. Sticking to like only high caliber AV on the arms and battery launched rockets on the shoulders might be a much saner system leaving advanced customization options to the tanks.

It's important to remember that there are tons of weapons to do AA, AV, and AI. Different vehicles can utilize different ones with different strengths and advantages and trade-offs. As an example while one AA can be offensive long range combat another can be short range defensive. (Slower flak or short range missiles). AI has been discussed in older threads. Machine guns, mortar shells, grenade launchers, lasers, etc. Lots of choices with different gameplay ideas kind of. (lasers being instant and machine guns dropping with gravity and such and requiring leading a target).

So one man mechs, ever seen a wolverine from C&C? Basically a slightly taller MAX. Make them bigger, slower MAXs with armor akin to a lightning and no special abilities. They'll be used about as often as lightnings as they'll be obvious targets and lack the ability to cope with anything they're not specialized for. Can't see them as a good use of Dev time.
Pretty much what I described in the first post. However, the armor argument was for survivability. You might be taking damage or immobilized for the most part but you're not out of the fight. I've mentioned this before that I like giving people time to react. The armor thing is more of a balance issue. It's really hard to tell how long vehicles will last in the new game so I'm going to stop referencing hit counts in PS1 terms.

You mentioned no abilities. I'm more in the camp of giving everyone abilities. It really opens up choices for players. Giving a mech less abilities would be an option. For instance, I want a tank to have grenade launchers (smoke, frag, plasma) as an upgrade for CQC threats and for helping friendlies push forward. (Also want momentary stealth for tanks since it would be cool to see a tank cloak for like 5 seconds). Giving a mech the ability for momentary shields or flight powered by a single bar the discharges after use and costs resources to upgrade every time isn't unreasonable if balanced correctly. The main idea though should be to give players a ton of choices since it increases the skill of the game. (5 choices and you have 5 seconds to decide what to do in a situation kind of stuff).

BFRs: The goal for BFRs was to create a Heavy Battle Tank (HBT).
Yeah and I disagree with that with regards to mech chassis (that is probably obvious by now). Never much cared for the "Medium Battle Tank" idea. It should just be "Tank" reflecting there is no superior version for AV damage. That is the tank has the highest AV DPS.

Captain1nsaneo

2011-10-14, 08:42 PM

the Gunship is now much closer to being balanced as its survivability has dropped.

The galaxy gunship is balanced?

Closer is not balanced.

Grognard

2012-01-22, 02:30 PM

Interesting.

First, its TIMBERWOLF, aff? :p (referencing "MadCat")

Second, I HATE BFRs, they give mechs the worst name "evar...", but I love mechs...

Third, I would like to see a version of "mech" in PS2, but like many have said, it must not invalidate any other vehicle, especially MAXs and Tanks, nor be overpowered. I do, however, think there is enough room/creativity to implement such a thing without alienating half the playerbase.

VioletZero

2012-01-22, 02:37 PM

Vancha

2012-01-22, 03:32 PM

My idea would be to have it be walking, weaker tanks with jumpjets for traversing mountains or other obstacles.

Violet, run.

Shogun

2012-01-22, 03:32 PM

how about an AT-AT? ;)

i would like the bacon AT-AT:
http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Bacon-AT-AT-1.jpg

and vs would finally get their purple pony

Grognard

2012-01-22, 03:55 PM

Wow, I didn't expect such bile for such a cool idea as having Mechs.

They must have been really poorly implemented in PS1.

That said, Mechs are awesome. Though, I do agree that the implementation will be challenging given the way that vehicles are put into the game. But I'm sure we could work this out...

My idea would be to have it be walking, weaker tanks with jumpjets for traversing mountains or other obstacles.

You are 100% correct about the bile, esp. in my case. My only defence is that I am spoiled by the better Mechwarrior games, and having read about 20 books on the BTech/MW fiction, so, BFR's for me, were a shock, in a bad way... :)

I think your idea might be balanced, perhaps if they were at the very top of the MAX tree, requiring a lot of sacrifice to be a Heavy-MAX pilot. Reason I say this, is to reward the MAX player, rather than supplant him/her for dedication to the skill tree, with an outdoor-only MAX (heavy variant). This variant still being subordinate in raw power to the Tanks, but fill a niche role as superior outdoor MAX.

My only concern now, would be relative to the Lighning...

VioletZero

2012-01-22, 04:02 PM

This is the biggest damn thread I've ever seen!

and some of you guys are just assholes... The man had an idea and was splashed with hate.

A lot of people were just burned by how they were implemented in Planetside 1.

And I can sympathize.

However, what a lot of people might not realize is that while it wasn't a great addition to the first planetside, it can be implemented better in the second game.

SKYeXile

2012-01-22, 04:19 PM

I guess im the only person who thinks this, but I loved the original un-nerfed BFR's. I seen nothing wrong with them at all. It's a Big Fucking Robot, it's suppose to beat the shit out of everything and be hard to kill, It's a Big Fucking Robot.

Besides that, I remember when everyone was SUPER stoked and couldn't WAIT to get one and play with it, then bitched and complained when they couldn't one man army it.

Besides the fact you could go 250/0 in the original BFR's in just over an hour, NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THEM AT ALL!

BorisBlade

2012-01-22, 04:25 PM

Closer is not balanced.

meh compare it to 6 reavers you could get with teh same manpower, heck even 5 is better. A few decent AA and you roast a gunship. I get my ass handed to me by gunships alot and i still think they are fine. Plenty of weaknesses and downsides and they need 6 people to function fully, at minimum 4 if you dont mind leaving one side unused and require a DSC. Plus the xp pinata when i kill em is very nice. They cant just run away like the cowardly reavers and skeeters when i start blasting away.

If you can tell me its better to have the gal than 6 reavers or skeeters than maybe we can talk. If you dont like em shooting you then take 6 of your guys and get AA and the thing will die instantly, heck take 3 of em, get AA then get 3 reavers, the AA will kill the gal then take the other 3 and roast everything else. Manpower is part of the balancing equation. Reavers may skip this part (too much power for the manpower involved) but most everything else follows it and it works well.

Shogun

2012-01-22, 04:28 PM

biffers are just the hate subject number one for ps1 fans because they are being made responsible for the downfall of the best game ever.

creating a thread about them always ends like that!
yeah the op was talking about mechs but since biffers had the shape of mechs most players alarm buttons are triggered immediately. theres nothing you can do about it now.

let´s just end this discussion for now. it´s not the right time. wait until after release and until we got a big playerbase with all the new players. then it might be possible to restart a new discussion without the immediate hatewar but maybe with fresh ideas.

Elude

2012-01-22, 04:36 PM

The OP basically suggests a mech version of a customizable Harasser with one player slot. I would never give a player the power to harass on his own unless he's in the air where he's extremely vulnerable, it would be more deadly than a BFR or a Reaver.

If you want to add a vehicle to fit the role of harassing the enemy then it needs to be a multi passenger vehicle like the old fashion Harasser.

VioletZero

2012-01-22, 04:40 PM

You're absolutely right.

I think that the idea of mechs should definitely be revisited. Well, later when the forums aren't so populated by veterans who were burned by it.

I'm certain the developers learned their lesson too on what doesn't work about mechs.

EASyEightyEight

2012-01-22, 04:56 PM

A lightning on legs is all I wanted back in PS1. Not nearly as destructive as a battle tank, but it would be like a heavily armored and slow moving lightning with a height advantage/disadvantage. A heavily armored outdoor-only MAX in other words.

The idea of mechs was cool for most players. The problem was the developers made them into walking, flying Mammoth tanks with shields. Who the hell asked for shields!?

Vancha

2012-01-22, 05:01 PM

Hypothetically, lets say they added mechs and again it ruined the game...I'm not sure they could do anything worse. I think mechs absolutely could be added to PS2 (as I'm pretty sure I argued earlier in the thread. I'm not going back again to remind myself), but perhaps it'd be better to try and fill whatever role the mechs would fill with something other than mechs, so then at least if it ruins the game, SOE don't look quite as incompetent and people won't be quite as enraged...

Shogun

2012-01-22, 05:06 PM

remember, if anything ruins ps2, this time they might be able to roll back and remove the gamebreaker. as long as they don´t sell this gamebreaker in the cash-shop.

last time bfr were the main selling argument for an expansion pack. no chance to roll back.

Warborn

2012-01-22, 08:16 PM

One-man vehicles are not really appropriate for something like this. I think in general the fewer one-person vehicles that Planetside has the better. The vehicles they've announced as being one-person are all appropriate for their particular reasons, but I think one-person mechs would cross the line in a serious way.

As for mechs in general, the concept is fine. They're just another vehicle and the irrational vitriol PS1 players express toward the very idea of mechs is pretty silly. The fairly obvious points that need to be expressed in any implementation of mechs is a) balance and b) a defined niche. Having mechs be imbalanced is, needless to say, dumb, but also having them compete with MBTs would be pointless. Mechs need to have a niche they fulfill that MBTs do not. That is the thing that ultimately should decide whether mechs are ever added in or not.

GuvNuh

2012-01-22, 08:21 PM

I could see a light walker-type vehicle. i agree that they should at least be 2 seaters though. I personally get the image of either a warhammer 40k sentinel, or a chicken-walker. either would be kinda nifty. i like the idea of a screaming little chicken-mech charging into battle with a big-ass flamethrower and oversized chainsaw. As in all things however, it would depend on implementation.

Effective

2012-01-22, 08:28 PM

I guess im the only person who thinks this, but I loved the original un-nerfed BFR's. I seen nothing wrong with them at all. It's a Big Fucking Robot, it's suppose to beat the shit out of everything and be hard to kill, It's a Big Fucking Robot.

Besides that, I remember when everyone was SUPER stoked and couldn't WAIT to get one and play with it, then bitched and complained when they couldn't one man army it.

Yeah because being able to completely invalidate the existence of entire outfits dedicated to tanks was a great idea.

Go figure it wasn't, they were poorly implemented.

Grognard

2012-01-22, 08:39 PM

I guess im the only person who thinks this, but I loved the original un-nerfed BFR's. I seen nothing wrong with them at all. It's a Big Fucking Robot, it's suppose to beat the shit out of everything and be hard to kill, It's a Big Fucking Robot.

Besides that, I remember when everyone was SUPER stoked and couldn't WAIT to get one and play with it, then bitched and complained when they couldn't one man army it.

However, you still dont like them, and dont want them in PS2, right? 'Cause you voted for this option...

"I don't like single person bipedal mechs and don't want them in the game"

sylphaen

2012-01-22, 08:41 PM

Single person mech >> MAXes are not 1-person mechy enough ?
:doh:

Justaman

2012-01-23, 01:20 AM

We already have single person, bipedal mechs. They're very small, so small in fact, they're a class of armor, called MAX's. :P

DxC

2012-01-23, 03:30 AM

MechWarrior 5 is out soon - so can play that if you want to get your mech on

Vancha

2012-01-23, 04:16 AM

MAXs are exo-armour at best.

sylphaen

2012-01-23, 04:26 AM

For all I care, if they ever decide to implement such an idea, I would not mind it as long as they keep the mech fights in outer-space, in a galaxy far far away...
:rolleyes:

Mastachief

2012-01-23, 06:56 AM

Any walking vehicle in planetside should be avoided at all cost regardless of balance. It brings back the horror of BFR and that should be enough reason.

The vemon in this thread alone should show the DEVs the level of strong opposition they would face.

All these "oh but this time they will be done right"............ What track record with SOE are you basing that assumption on?

OOOO but it looks cool!!!!!!!!!!

So do tanks........................ more tanks

Shogun

2012-01-23, 08:03 AM

For all I care, if they ever decide to implement such an idea, I would not mind it as long as they keep the mech fights in outer-space, in a galaxy far far away...
:rolleyes:

that´s the exact location of auraxis.:groovy:

i would not mind to see totally overpowered 4 legged mechs only usable on the icy continent as long as a reaver can bring it down by flying circles around it and wrapping some cable round the legs ;-)

would at least counter those "ps2 is just a halo ripoff!" shouts ;)

Qwan

2012-01-23, 08:33 AM

I actually like this idea, a single man mech. I mean of course the layout of damage and skill tree certs should be balanced to make it usfull but not over powering. But hey the more vehicles the better. Having a load of options to choose from makes the game fun, I can say this about planetside 1, every vehicle that was availible was used. And had its advantages in different types of battles, from indoors (maxes), to bridges, (libarators and tanks), as well as air with the misquito and reavers all the way to the galaxy for those troop drops. So my question is were would you deploy a vehicle like this, not open terran, tanks would rip it apart, forest is no no, cant menuver, but maybe lightly wooded. Well it sounds cool to me, throw it in im sure well find a good use for it, some where and if not well just put at the top of hill and use it for connan fodder.

Canaris

2012-01-23, 08:42 AM

I can feel my bile rising again and I'm sure 77% of people agree with me

EVILoHOMER

2012-01-23, 08:43 AM

They looked dumb in Planetside and they'll look dumb in Planetside 2, keep them out.

Knocky

2012-01-23, 09:00 AM

ATTN: Everyone that wants Mech....er....Biffers.

Delete your accounts here.

This is not the game you are looking for.

THIS is the game you want to troll forums at.

http://mwomercs.com

Hmr85

2012-01-23, 10:05 AM

I'm not gonna read the other 23 pages. However, NO NO NO NO NO..... Keep frigging mech's out of the game. NO!!

I agree with the poster above me. Also NO NO to Mech's.

Princess Frosty

2012-01-23, 10:36 AM

Single user mechs are just a bad idea IMO, no vehicle should really be effective with one person controlling the whole thing, in fact the new tank system where the driver gets the main gun I also disagree with.

A lot of the suggestions for having mechs I think can just be equally applied to the tank system, things like locational damage. I just don't see a helpful niche for mechs to fill.

Vancha

2012-01-23, 10:58 AM

Oh, now I remember why I started supporting mechs in this thread...

I swear, it's like a community of rape victims who can no longer be intimate with the opposite sex.

Grognard

2012-01-23, 11:21 AM

Oh, now I remember why I started supporting mechs in this thread...

I swear, it's like a community of rape victims who can no longer be intimate with the opposite sex.

LOL, it sure does seem that way :)

I did not like BFRs at all... and I am spoiled by the mechwarrior games... but even I will not discount the possibility that they could be a viable addition to PS2. In a nut shell (hopefully not nutcase), I am open minded... no problem getting intimate with a mech here... :huh:

But if they dont, I am OK with that too. Maybe I am in the minority here, but my issues with BFRs was not the "OPness" or like Sky said... 250->0 kill ratio... It was the way they looked standing on a hillside, the bad animations, the horrendous handling (even for a mech...yes), the mid-air hangtime, and the silly look of the VS... thing...

I always have the above mentioned new Mechwarrior encarnations for my "Jade Falcon time"...

VioletZero

2012-01-23, 02:30 PM

Warborn

2012-01-23, 03:19 PM

Wait a second, the main argument against mechs is that there shouldn't be a single person vehicle more powerful than a MAX, but if a driver can operate the main gun too, doesn't that basically mean that tanks can be single person now?

The main argument against mechs is that we don't have any idea what sort of capability MBTs will have beyond "it's a tank and shoots stuff or something", and therefore it's way too tell what kind of niche would be available for mechs to occupy. Having two ground vehicles that are two person and designed around either killing armor or infantry based on their load-out would be redundant and a waste of effort. Mechs, and any vehicle they add to the game really, needs to have a specific purpose that isn't occupied by some other vehicle already. Otherwise you get situations like in PS1 where you had a ton of vehicles that were basically pointless additions to the game because they were worse than some other vehicle at essentially any function.

Redshift

2012-01-23, 05:23 PM

The main argument against mechs is ...

No the main arguement is that they are implausible as far as sensible military design, reasons posted earlier.

No idea why people are pissing themselves to put ironsights in for realism and then trying to stick in bipedal tanks.....

NewSith

2012-01-23, 05:28 PM

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/1808/222856-61114769_super.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/b/b8/Juggernaut_2030_01.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/7/7e/AT-ST_negvv.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/ru.starwars/images/5/5a/AT-RT-TCW.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/a/a6/AT-PT_NEGVV.jpg

How can't you love those?

Warborn

2012-01-23, 06:20 PM

No the main arguement is that they are implausible as far as sensible military design, reasons posted earlier.

Okay, well, that isn't a real argument so nobody cares about it. In terms of arguments that themselves are sensible objections I think the main issue is one of gameplay.

Redshift

2012-01-23, 07:04 PM

Okay, well, that isn't a real argument so nobody cares about it. In terms of arguments that themselves are sensible objections I think the main issue is one of gameplay.

no i think the idea of an army choosing walking robots over tanks laughable tbh

Raymac

2012-01-23, 07:19 PM

no i think the idea of an army choosing walking robots over tanks laughable tbh

But wouldn't walking robots have an advantage of going over rough terrain?

There's pros and cons. But let's always keep in mind that Planetside is sci-fi which always mixes healthy doses of reality and fantasy. I'm reminded of the scene in Star Wars of Han Solo and Obi-Wan debating the feasability of lightsabers.

Figment

2012-01-23, 07:23 PM

Tbh, haven't posted in this thread yet, due to the obvious.

But the implementation of mechs in PS2 would have several, BIG problems.

1. SOE has on several occassions promised there would be no Battleframe Robotics in PS2. Going back on their word would get severe backlash from the community, regardless of how they are implemented.

2. The majority of PS1 players have been traumatised by BFRs. The main problem everyone had an issue with was not the shape of the vehicle, but the specific abilities these units had where other units did not have anywhere close. Particularly at release, but also later on as they gradually got nerfed till they were acceptably 'balanced'. These main abilities were shield (strength and recharge rate), jumping height and frequency, building camping (from top of buildings in particular), combined with more than impressive firepower. Though PS2 mechs would not need to have them, the association is enough to make many PS1 players distrust the concept completely.

The problem for fans of big effing robots, is that since ALL PS1 mechs weren't properly balanced for a long period of time, these characteristics are now appearing to be intrinsically associated with the mere concept of mechs. In fact, even MAX units (Scat MAX in particular, but overuse in indoor situations in general, especially by zergfits) contributed even more to a general hatred of mecha-nized units.

Btw, Duke, saw you say something about Big robots HAVING to be powerful using a circle argument as if there is some inherent quality about big robots that define them being more powerful than anyone else and providing an elitist position where they can not be killed but can kill at their own discresion.

Just... NO. Big robots have robotic elements, which are of a large size. That is all. Nowhere does it state they should be invincible deathmachines just because they are robots. Nobody can blame you for having a liking to robots or even BFRs. However, if you support it with such a bad argument, they can blame you for being a selfish, robot fanboy with no sense for social game interaction and fair gameplay balance (ie. one unit being way more powerful than others for no reason whatsoever).

So, since there is no absolute need for adding mech units and the discriminating hatred against anything BFR designfamily related, I don't think it'd be a very bright idea to add them. And considering at this point the vote is approximately 78% against, 16% in favour, that seems quite a convincing reason not to, to me anyway.

Topic closed?

Raymac

2012-01-23, 07:29 PM

2. The majority of PS1 players have been traumatised by BFRs. The main problem everyone had an issue with was not the shape of the vehicle, but the specific abilities these units had where other units did not have anywhere close. Particularly at release, but also later on as they gradually got nerfed till they were acceptably 'balanced'. These main abilities were shield (strength and recharge rate), jumping height and frequency, building camping (from top of buildings in particular), combined with more than impressive firepower. Though PS2 mechs would not need to have them, the association is enough to make many PS1 players distrust the concept completely.

I don't know if I've ever agreed with ya more, Figment. Word for word. Well said.

The only thing I would add is that I would leave the door open for a balanced mech to be in the game at some point, if only because you should never say never. T-Ray has stated his desire for mechs to be done right, and I think it's possible, but they would just have to be very vocal to the players about learning from the mistakes of the first iteration of BFRs.

Redshift

2012-01-23, 07:37 PM

But wouldn't walking robots have an advantage of going over rough terrain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6dKPkL2oto0

no,

bipedal robots cost a shit load are difficult to control and are more liable to break.

wheels do do everything better

Hmr85

2012-01-23, 07:39 PM

This takes place way in the future. I don't think Asimo is a good representation of what technology would be by then. I would hope we would have found a way to take care of that.

Raymac

2012-01-23, 07:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6dKPkL2oto0

no,

bipedal robots cost a shit load are difficult to control and are more liable to break.

wheels do do everything better

But imagine Asimo 6.0. We are talking about the future here. It's not exactly fair to compare the 1st telephone with the iPhone. Wheels and treads have advantages and limits just like legs.

Hmr85

2012-01-23, 07:46 PM

But imagine Asimo 6.0. We are talking about the future here. It's not exactly fair to compare the 1st telephone with the iPhone. Wheels and treads have advantages and limits just like legs.

well said..

VioletZero

2012-01-23, 07:51 PM

No the main arguement is that they are implausible as far as sensible military design, reasons posted earlier.

No idea why people are pissing themselves to put ironsights in for realism and then trying to stick in bipedal tanks.....

Personally, I am in favor of ironsights because it slows down the game to a point where tact is more important than individual skill. But that's a topic for another thread.

Redshift

2012-01-23, 08:00 PM

This takes place way in the future. I don't think Asimo is a good representation of what technology would be by then. I would hope we would have found a way to take care of that.

well yes, but that assumes standard vehicles technology doesn't evolve too. I'm pretty sure no matter how good you can make a bipedal robot you'll always be able to build a better wheeled thing, the centre of gravity alone makes legs less useful

VioletZero

2012-01-23, 08:09 PM

How about just out of admiration of the bipedal form?

This isn't supposed to be gritty realism. Just supposed to be a hell of a lot of fun.

Hmr85

2012-01-23, 08:16 PM

well yes, but that assumes standard vehicles technology doesn't evolve too. I'm pretty sure no matter how good you can make a bipedal robot you'll always be able to build a better wheeled thing, the centre of gravity alone makes legs less useful

Hey, just playing the devils advocate here. I'm not for BFR's/Mechs. However, if they do decide to implement them later down the road they could limit the jump to half the height the single seater had in PS1 to scale small obsticles. Same could be said for track/wheeled vehicles. Small thrusters on the bottom of the vehicle could do the same if where gonna keep it realistic.

Mastachief

2012-01-23, 08:58 PM

well said..

Bollocks, give me a landline £9 phone over a crappy iphone 4 any day to make a phone call.

Bi pedal mech have no place in a world full of tanks, mechs are over complicated and full or weaknesses.

VioletZero

2012-01-23, 09:04 PM

Bollocks, give me a landline £9 phone over a crappy iphone 4 any day to make a phone call.

Bi pedal mech have no place in a world full of tanks, mechs are over complicated and full or weaknesses.

If we can't have fantasy vehicles in a fantasy setting, where can we have it?

Hmr85

2012-01-23, 09:07 PM

Bollocks, give me a landline £9 phone over a crappy iphone 4 any day to make a phone call.

Bi pedal mech have no place in a world full of tanks, mechs are over complicated and full or weaknesses.

Tanks have the same weakness. Blow off one of its Track and its not going anywhere....Armor is weakest from above so on and so on.

Warborn

2012-01-23, 09:59 PM

no i think the idea of an army choosing walking robots over tanks laughable tbh

Mechs are well-established in sci-fi warfare. If you don't like them conceptually that's fine, but it's not at all an argument against them being a possible addition to the game. Frankly I'm not sure why you're interested in Planetside 2 at all, as the vehicles in it already aren't anything like what a realistic sci-fi army of the future would be using, mechs or no mechs.

This isn't supposed to be gritty realism. Just supposed to be a hell of a lot of fun.

This is all that needs to be said. The only thing that matters is whether it's fun and looks cool/appropriate. Nobody except some weirdo nerds would ever let the plausibility of mechs keep them from enjoying piloting a big walking robot with lasers and stuff.

Zhane

2012-01-23, 10:08 PM

I like mechs. MechWarrior is one of my favorite franchises. But as for mechs in Planetside, I could take em or leave em. And since so much of the established fanbase has a bad taste in their mouth about the subject, probably best to leave em.

Warborn

2012-01-23, 10:53 PM

It's been years since BFRs were added. I like to think that PS1 players who were around for that period have matured enough that they'd realize mechs in PS2 would have nothing to do with BFRs in PS1.

VioletZero

2012-01-24, 12:20 AM

I got a crazy idea.

How about we make MBTs 2-3 man vehicles again(and upgrade their stats) and then make Planetside 2 BFRs take the place of what the tanks were originally planned to be.

And then make them share (most) of their CERTs.

One MBT > Two BFRs. But Mechs would be the more accessible both in terms of skill required and communication. As well as having a few niche roles.(Jump jetting up mountains!)

Fate

2012-01-24, 02:28 AM

VioletZero

2012-01-24, 02:29 AM

Why is this even still a topic for discussion. SOE already said they're not putting BFR's/Mech's in PS2 due to how much the original player base for PS1 hated them. Silly idea, but they actually want people to play PS2, and probably don't want it in the same state PS1 currently is in.

That's subject to change. Especially after the game launches.

Besides, would they really be so stupid as to think that they can't, you know, rebalance or retool it so that it doesn't have the same gamebreaking effects?

stordito

2012-01-24, 05:24 AM

it's still too much of a game-changer imho.

light ground vehicles are fast,ligh-armored,effective agaist infantry or air cav.
ground vehicles are slow, armored and powerful,they cannot go everywhere.
air vehicles are fast but light armored,can go everywhere but are easily spotted.
infantry is slow and not armored, can go everywhere and is hardly spottable and can engage any of those.

Any mech,by definition would be fast,armored,able to go everywhere and able to engage with success any of the above.

you could nerf the thing down until it becomes useless,but that's not the point.
i'ts the concept of this war unit that is a level above the others.
PS looks like a scifi shooter,but actually it's just a modern day shooter with scifi "cosmetics".
we have air vehicles with vtol,cars,armored trucks,tanks...a mech is another legacy.
It's like if Napoleon had sniper rifles,it woul have changed the battlefield forever.
fuck the cannons, i can snipe the sh*t out of the guy operating it from a mile.

I'd like to see mechs too,but honestly BFRs where fun when they where overpowered.
later they become a slow walking pile of junk unable to stand a guy firing between his legs,and perhaps nothing more than a tank with the optional ability to jump and a stupid shield generator on his ass with "SHOOT ME" written on it. :D

Redshift

2012-01-24, 09:56 AM

If we can't have fantasy vehicles in a fantasy setting, where can we have it?

Mech warrior 5....

Hamma

2012-01-24, 10:22 AM

As I've said numerous times in this thread, Smed already said there would be no BFR's in PS2. Certainly the mighty dollar sign can change that sometimes but at this point this is kind of a pointless discussion topic.

Bitmap

2012-01-24, 12:04 PM

How about this...

Outdoor exoskeletons for MAXes aquired like a vehicle that provide the things a MAX needs to operate outdoors. It would be part of the MAX tree and fairly deep in at that. The MAX would be able to travel faster and have more armor (no frackin' shields!) but would have to dismount from it in order to enter a building. Idealy, it would be used for transport as no additional weapons are added this way but AV MAXes get a nice boost in survivability against thier intended targets. AI and AA MAXes also benefit to a lesser degree.

What say you?

Vancha

2012-01-24, 12:17 PM

How about this...

Outdoor exoskeletons for MAXes

What say you?
Maxception.

Baron

2012-01-24, 12:21 PM

I think the results of the poll should speak for itself and close this thread.

Vancha

2012-01-24, 01:00 PM

I think the results of the poll should speak for itself and close this thread.
I'm pretty sure it's been said already, but I'll repeat it. The poll is mostly meaningless. The majority of people here have an aversion to mechs for obvious reasons, but even the total number of people here will hopefully pale in comparison to the player-base of Planetside 2. Hell, we're already seeing the arrival of people in this thread who didn't play PS1 and can discuss this rationally, instead of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming for the bad man to be sent away.

And of course, not liking something isn't a good reason to have the thread closed.

Sighpolice

2012-01-24, 01:08 PM

The idea of mechs in general isn't a bad one but it can't really work in a game like this.. I mean you've got tanks and aircraft and even naval has been talked about and not to forget the ground troops who will have all the AT under the sun available to them..

It's hard to implement a mech without it being a massive target of free kills, if you think about it the design itself of standing on 2 legs is a downfall, you only need small arms fire to take out a portion of the knee and it's rendered useless...

besides, if it had more firepower than a tank it would be overpowered, less firepower than a tank it will be underpowered and if it's the same then isn't it just going to be another thing to shoot at rather than be an intuitive reason to get people to play PS2?

Stay away from the idea until you can get some sort of scout mech, that works similar to the imperial gaurd's sentinel.. hardly any firepower but can run fast and has radar equipment

and for the record I quit PS 1 when BFR's were introduced, have been back to it since obviously but it's just not the same

Baron

2012-01-24, 03:44 PM

I'm pretty sure it's been said already, but I'll repeat it. The poll is mostly meaningless. The majority of people here have an aversion to mechs for obvious reasons, but even the total number of people here will hopefully pale in comparison to the player-base of Planetside 2. Hell, we're already seeing the arrival of people in this thread who didn't play PS1 and can discuss this rationally, instead of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming for the bad man to be sent away.

And of course, not liking something isn't a good reason to have the thread closed.

mechs ruined the first planetside, why even go there for planetside 2? Let the people who want mechs go play mechwarrior online

basti

2012-01-24, 04:04 PM

That's subject to change. Especially after the game launches.

Besides, would they really be so stupid as to think that they can't, you know, rebalance or retool it so that it doesn't have the same gamebreaking effects?

Its not subject to change.

If you still didnt got it yet: Its not the balancing issues that screwed it up, its the mechs themself. They do simply not belong to planetside, there is no place for big Fking robots on Auraxis.

Vancha

2012-01-24, 04:25 PM

mechs ruined the first planetside, why even go there for planetside 2? Let the people who want mechs go play mechwarrior online

That was a stellar example. Thank you.

VioletZero

2012-01-24, 04:30 PM

Its not subject to change.

If you still didnt got it yet: Its not the balancing issues that screwed it up, its the mechs themself. They do simply not belong to planetside, there is no place for big Fking robots on Auraxis.

Everything so far is subject to change. This included.

If they truly felt that this is inappropriate for the Planetside universe then they wouldn't have added them to begin with.

Given the place in culture that mecha stands at, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

mechs ruined the first planetside, why even go there for planetside 2? Let the people who want mechs go play mechwarrior online

Mech Warrior Online isn't an MMO last time I checked.

FriendlyFire

2012-01-24, 04:55 PM

Just reading this last page I can agree with a few things that would be "neat."

- MAX upgrades (armor, weapons, etc) possibly only used outside that have "side effects" like slower movement, etc.

This would be neat seeing Top Tier MAX units on the battlefield with Top Tier weapons.

The game will never need something stronger, faster, bigger, than the current games battle tanks.

sylphaen

2012-01-24, 05:01 PM

People who want mechs expect something powerful with devastating abilities and awesome stuff. What's the point of having BFRs otherwise, right ?

Well, that's how they were implemented in PS1. In their original implementation, they were as awesome and dominating as they looked. But terribly broken balance-wise.

Then they got nerfed and people wondered what was the point of them if not to soak up tons of damage and slow down movement of battles.

My point is that if they put mechs in a game, people expect them to be awesome or otherwise they will be disappointed. It's a catch-22: you either break game balance or disappoint your customers who wanted mechs.

At least, that's how I see things.

VioletZero

2012-01-24, 05:02 PM

The game will never need something stronger, faster, bigger, than the current games battle tanks.

This is something I agree with. MBTs should ABSOLUTELY be the main ground armor assault vehicle.

Vancha

2012-01-25, 04:13 AM

People who want mechs expect something powerful with devastating abilities and awesome stuff. What's the point of having BFRs otherwise, right ?
What do BFRs have to do with this? You were talking about mechs.

No, I would not expect mechs to be powerful with devastating abilities and awesome stuff. My ideal mech, if they were to be implemented, would be like IG's sentinels or Eldar war walkers in Warhammer 40k, rather than an Eldar wraith lord or Star Wars ATST. They wouldn't be the slowest thing on the battlefield, nor would they be the most durable.

Figment

2012-01-25, 06:37 AM

Mastachief

2012-01-25, 09:27 AM

Well stated figgy.

Vancha

2012-01-25, 10:34 AM

You know Vancha, why do you think people want solo-person mechs in?

Because they've seen Mobile Suit anime's a lot. I mean, a lot of these people think of controlling a mobile suit as being Teh Awesum Hero from one of these teen cartoons: they have to be super powerful and certainly superior to tanks, because mechs have always been portrayed in sci fi as upgrades to conventional combat.
You really need to stop speaking for other people.

You propose lighter, alternatives. But if you consider the GDI Wolverine (small, AI mech) from C&C Tiberian Sun and compare it to an AI Buggy, it does the same, but is slower and has a larger profile. So what's the point? That you look different/cool? Is that enough? No, you'd need some specific benefits. So that you can walk on steaper terrain like BFRs could and reach positions only infantry can now? If that is the case, I don't like it because you'd finally have spots where infantry would be relatively on their own and you'd go screw with that again.
Again you speak for me. I proposed nothing. I described an alternative because I felt sylphaen's assumption was flawed.

Looking at the GDI Wolverine, I'm not sure why I'd consider it...It looks more like a juggernaut than the type of mech I described.

You could lso put some thrusters on tanks and basically you'd get the Landmaster tank from Lylat Wars and make it do some barrel roles. It's sci fi, it's different, it's not a mech... But does it fit in, or is it something that is better left in an on rail single player shooter where you are not going to abuse it to squash infantry controlled by other players who are sneaking up on your side?
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

- A landmaster is a specific entity, a mech is a far more variable concept.
- As you should know by now, I wouldn't claim whether anything speculative would fit in or not.
- Planetside already has a history of large vehicles squashing infantry.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see the added benefit of mechs to the PlanetSide universe. Besides, we don't even have buggies yet (some of the most loved featured vehicles from PS1 are the ES buggies) and there's already suggestions of adding the most hated things?

Some people should get their priorities straight and understand the community's context before proposing things.
This doesn't sound directed towards me, but again I'll say I haven't proposed anything and I'm pretty sure I haven't suggested anything should be added since this thread got resurrected.

Vancha, I'm quite sure that you could get new people in here to claim they wouldn't mind BFR type concepts as well. In fact, we already had people in this thread who liked BFRs upon release. So just because they're new, doesn't mean they've got the right to overrule the request from long term players to drop mechs for a sequel.
Again you misrepresent my comments. I never suggested that just because someone was new that they had the right to overrule the wishes of Planetside vets. In response to Baron, I was explaining that we will probably represent a very small percentage of the eventual player base of Planetside 2 and thus to portray the results of the poll as the desires of the majority was incorrect, especially considering that the very thing that lead the vast majority of us to congregate here is something that would cause most people to have a bias against the subject at hand (and understandable bias, but still).

Oh and here's a fun one for you Vancha, why don't you wait for beta to see if they'd fit in if you are so certain you can't make a judgement prior to seeing the game? So how could you possibly ask for them if you don't know the exact context and the exact niches they'd have to fill? Especially with respect to other vehicles that are still going to be added after beta?

Oh wait, speculative design and judging by making assumptions on what their relative strengths would or should be to be fair and acceptable, pre-defining their use and role and extrapolating on what players would do with it maybe? Only accepting that this is true under the exact conditions you stated for this judgement to be somewhat accurate, perhaps?

I didn't.

Edit: In case it's not clear yet (it bloody well should be), I'm not asking, pushing, suggesting, proposing or advocating the existence of mechs in Planetside 2. I'm fairly sure my posts in this thread consist solely of trying to dismantle the faulty logic behind the premature objections towards them (with some occasional smart assery thrown in here or there, I expect).

Figment

2012-01-25, 11:34 AM

You did, you made a specific example of a unit you'd consider a more viable alternative to BFRs.

But you constantly keep reminding people that you can't make judgements without knowing the exact context, so how could you possibly by your own standards have a preference for an alternate type of mech?

Mind, I'm not concerned with the argument that this mech you proposed would be a better alternative to BFRs or the one proposed by the OP - I'm merely saying you are being hypocritical.

Also, as you more or less deduced, not the entire post was aimed at you specifically, I often simply switch to general statements.

Thing is, even if we're the eventual minority, a promise was made and a promise should be kept. Maybe we'll miss out on this one fantastically well implemented, well balanced mech unit. But that still doesn't mean it should be considered as its roles can be done by other units as well and regardless of how its implemented, it would be felt like a stab in the back of PS1 vets and that is more important than anything else.

Besides. Why should new people care either way? Just because they are new does not mean the majority of new players WANTS mechs or has an entirely different perspective either. It's a bit like Hollywood movies where they take something that worked as a massive succes in a specific series, setting or book and then say "well, the GENERAL PUBLIC wants something different, so we changed it completely from what the fans expected and we just did something what we always do with a bit of a hint to the original". Nobody can presume to talk for large crowds, especially not-yet-existing ones.

Let me bet you this for this new, huge playerbase: whatever gameplay was first in PS2 will be the nostalgic thing people think should never be changed because it set the standard.

Vancha

2012-01-25, 12:35 PM

You did, you made a specific example of a unit you'd consider a more viable alternative to BFRs.

But you constantly keep reminding people that you can't make judgements without knowing the exact context, so how could you possibly by your own standards have a preference for an alternate type of mech?

Mind, I'm not concerned with the argument that this mech you proposed would be a better alternative to BFRs or the one proposed by the OP - I'm merely saying you are being hypocritical.
I know you're desperate to turn the last thread back upon me, but making a specific example of something more viable is not the same as saying it should be in the game. I think flails would be a more viable alternative than player-controlled sonic the hedgehog rip-offs that are invulnerable and can buzz-saw through people, but that doesn't imply that I think flails should be in the game.

Thing is, even if we're the eventual minority, a promise was made and a promise should be kept. Maybe we'll miss out on this one fantastically well implemented, well balanced mech unit. But that still doesn't mean it should be considered as its roles can be done by other units as well and regardless of how its implemented, it would be felt like a stab in the back of PS1 vets and that is more important than anything else.
You just made me realize that we were never promised there wouldn't be mechs. We were promised there wouldn't be BFRs. Bahaha. I know they wouldn't dare, but it's an amusing technicality.

Besides. Why should new people care either way? Just because they are new does not mean the majority of new players WANTS mechs or has an entirely different perspective either. It's a bit like Hollywood movies where they take something that worked as a massive succes in a specific series, setting or book and then say "well, the GENERAL PUBLIC wants something different, so we changed it completely from what the fans expected and we just did something what we always do with a bit of a hint to the original". Nobody can presume to talk for large crowds, especially not-yet-existing ones.

...And I haven't. In fact, that's practically what I was criticizing.

VioletZero

2012-01-25, 12:40 PM

There's no reason why Mechs can't work in Planetside.

FriendlyFire

2012-01-25, 12:45 PM

sylphaen

2012-01-25, 03:51 PM

What do BFRs have to do with this? You were talking about mechs.

BFR has always been about being Big F***ing Robots, like the BFG 9000. It's pretty much why to me mech = BFR.

I do not watch a ton of animes but all the mechanized I have ever seen were all BFRs.

I mentionned the MAX earlier in the thread as being a mech and I was even corrected that it would fit more in the category power armor or exo-skeleton category.

trying to dismantle the faulty logic behind the premature objections towards them

But in the end, even if they are tank-sized, does the game need robots (or super soldiers) ? I am not certain to see what extra they could bring to the game unless they just take the role of another vehicle. And that would be just re-modelling a vehicle role into a biped vehicle.

Even then, I am pretty sure people will feel disappointed because they will want their overpowered BFRs without understanding that PS2 is not about playing Mechwarrior or Hawken.

And those who think MAXes do not fit as being "mechanized infantry" is just because they are not OP enough.

I appreciate debating and I'm simply presenting my opinion, however false my assumptions or thinking may be in your eyes.

I say that with BF2142 in my mind were there were mechs. I don't think they were adding much to the game... Except an extra target for gunships/engineers? So yes, I agree with you that mechs are possible but I do not see any interest in them.

Vancha

2012-01-25, 04:16 PM

BFR has always been about being Big F***ing Robots, like the BFG 9000. It's pretty much why to me mech = BFR.

I do not watch a ton of animes but all the mechanized I have ever seen were all BFRs.

I mentionned the MAX earlier in the thread as being a mech and I was even corrected that it would fit more in the category power armor or exo-skeleton category.
Yeah...by me.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Sentinel

As much anime as I've watched, they're the only kinds of mechs I like. Bare-boned and agile.

But in the end, even if they are tank-sized, does the game need robots (or super soldiers) ? I am not certain to see what extra they could bring to the game unless they just take the role of another vehicle. And that would be just re-modelling a vehicle role into a biped vehicle.

I say that with BF2142 in my mind were there were mechs. I don't think they were adding much to the game... Except an extra target for gunships/engineers? So yes, I agree with you that mechs are possible but I do not see any interest in them.
I looked up the advantages/roles of mechs/walkers earlier. Common themes were a fair amount of speed, superior maneuverability, height advantage, a smaller target depth-wise and occasionally width-wise, stealth roles, support roles, reconnaissance and sensory/radar roles...None of those involve great amounts of firepower or durability.

Even then, I am pretty sure people will feel disappointed because they will want their overpowered BFRs without understanding that PS2 is not about playing Mechwarrior or Hawken.

And those who think MAXes do not fit as being "mechanized infantry" is just because they are not OP enough.

I appreciate debating and I'm simply presenting my opinion, however false my assumptions or thinking may be in your eyes.
Well okay, what are your reasons for believing the majority of people want overpowered BFR-style mechs?

VioletZero

2012-01-25, 04:27 PM

BFR has always been about being Big F***ing Robots, like the BFG 9000. It's pretty much why to me mech = BFR.

I do not watch a ton of animes but all the mechanized I have ever seen were all BFRs.

I mentionned the MAX earlier in the thread as being a mech and I was even corrected that it would fit more in the category power armor or exo-skeleton category.

But in the end, even if they are tank-sized, does the game need robots (or super soldiers) ? I am not certain to see what extra they could bring to the game unless they just take the role of another vehicle. And that would be just re-modelling a vehicle role into a biped vehicle.

Even then, I am pretty sure people will feel disappointed because they will want their overpowered BFRs without understanding that PS2 is not about playing Mechwarrior or Hawken.

And those who think MAXes do not fit as being "mechanized infantry" is just because they are not OP enough.

I appreciate debating and I'm simply presenting my opinion, however false my assumptions or thinking may be in your eyes.

I say that with BF2142 in my mind were there were mechs. I don't think they were adding much to the game... Except an extra target for gunships/engineers? So yes, I agree with you that mechs are possible but I do not see any interest in them.

Okay, playing devil's advocate here:

Mechs in 2142 were a dedicated anti-infantry platform. Mostly because by standing on two legs, it was able to have much better gun depression than tanks have.

They were also pretty good at anti-air and kinda meh against other ground armor. In that game, it worked out quite well.

I don't really know how that would work out in PS2.

Baron

2012-01-25, 04:40 PM

Okay, playing devil's advocate here:

Mechs in 2142 were a dedicated anti-infantry platform. Mostly because by standing on two legs, it was able to have much better gun depression than tanks have.

They were also pretty good at anti-air and kinda meh against other ground armor. In that game, it worked out quite well.

I don't really know how that would work out in PS2.

I agree about the BF2142 mechs...they were balanced pretty well. However the PS1 BFR's were just out of control. AA-AI-AV combinations all possible on a single 2-crew unit...and on SOME empires, the top AV gun worked efficiently on just about ANY target :rolleyes:

sylphaen

2012-01-25, 05:03 PM

Well okay, what are your reasons for believing the majority of people want overpowered BFR-style mechs

Because Japanese anime is all the rage ? It's also definitely how PS1 devs envisioned BFRs so I guess I am not alone in associating mechs with BFRs and missile showers/OP guns.

There not really any rational backing about that belief because I am not in people's heads and cannot fund a survey to back it either.

Now that's only about the mech = BFR mental association. I do not know at all if people really want "overpowered BFR-style mechs". As a matter of fact, I think most do not. Yet, some do and a thread about them spawns once in a while.

I am my fantasies about super MAXes that would be agile, stealthy and pack a lot of utilities along with an AI role. Now would it be balanced ? As in, would we need any soldiers with such a cool super armor ?

At least, your mech idea would not enter bases. It could however be as annoying as mosquitoes ever were in PS1 (from a ground soldier point of view). Or not, because given enough thought and effort, everything could become balanced.

But really, why not put it those abilities on soldier classes or ATVs ? Because we want mechs ?

Well, wanting something is a valid reason. I mean... I want separated driver/gunners on tanks. Others are against it.

No big deal, the devs will decide what is good for their game and we'll just see what happens in the end and choose to play it or not. If it fails, the people who enjoy it will simply play with less players.

Instant vehicle entrance and change of ownership in BF2142 irked me to no end. I never played that game again until recently and it reminded me why I hated it. It worked for a lot of people but just not for me.

Back to the bipeds, those roles could be put on any frame and balanced out so yes, we could have bipeds in PS2 just like there are ATVs, tanks and there could be buggies.

But as they get balanced to leave room for other roles on other platforms (i.e. soldiers, tanks, air vehicles, etc...), will we end up with something you people like or will players get disappointed ?

We may not know unless the devs try it.

Warborn

2012-01-25, 05:11 PM

This really isn't difficult guys. Mechs are common in science fiction. From Robot Jox to Battletech/Mechwarrior to whatever anime stuff, they're very well-known around the world. So conceptually mechs are reasonably popular.

The balance of them has nothing to do with anything else though. Their function, durability, and power is just numbers punched in by a programmer. The way they play in the game is not at all spoken for based on the fact that they're large, bipedal robots.

Dwelling on how balanced they'd be or what role they'd have or anything else is silly. They'd be balanced like any other vehicle and their role would be whatever makes the most sense from a gameplay standpoint.

That is all that there is to say about mechs in Planetside 2.

Effective

2012-01-25, 05:25 PM

Overwhelming majority of the population do not want mechs/bfr/whatever. Dont expect them at release, don't expect them anytime soon. Don't expect them ever.

End of stupid argument.

VioletZero

2012-01-25, 05:29 PM

Overwhelming majority of the population do not want mechs/bfr/whatever. Dont expect them at release, don't expect them anytime soon. Don't expect them ever.

End of stupid argument.

That has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is mostly populated by Planetside veterans who were burned by the BFR's poor implementation. No sir.

Figment

2012-01-25, 05:34 PM

I know you're desperate to turn the last thread back upon me, but making a specific example of something more viable is not the same as saying it should be in the game. I think flails would be a more viable alternative than player-controlled sonic the hedgehog rip-offs that are invulnerable and can buzz-saw through people, but that doesn't imply that I think flails should be in the game.

Which is why I simply noted you made assumptions (speculated conditions of a mech) and gave a speculative judgement within a speculative context and using a PS1 analogy (BFRs).

Of course, I'm not saying you can't make that judgement, because I'm of the opinion it's quite easy to make such assesments and I don't think those kind of things need to be too far from the truth.

You just made me realize that we were never promised there wouldn't be mechs. We were promised there wouldn't be BFRs. Bahaha. I know they wouldn't dare, but it's an amusing technicality.

Go back a couple posts of mine (first in this thread) and see that I beat you to this conclusion long, long ago. ;P Mechs =/= BFRs, however, BFRs == (OP) Mechs and therefore Mechs == BFRs (== OP Mechs) in the minds of most PS1 players (see the aforementioned assosiative reasons in that same post).

Possibly even if they'd be chicken sized. Though using a chicken sized mech (without a shield that can withstand a Magrider's continuous fire, of course) would probably go a long way to restoring the mental differentiation between mech and PS BFR.

...And I haven't. In fact, that's practically what I was criticizing.

Quite.

Mastachief

2012-01-25, 05:34 PM

That has nothing to do with the fact that this forum is mostly populated by Planetside veterans who were burned by the BFR's poor implementation. No sir.

Then have this discussion on the official forum once they launch planetside2 instead of banging your head against the wall here.

Let the thread die or have it locked we are just going around in circles.

Vancha

2012-01-25, 05:45 PM

Because Japanese anime is all the rage ? It's also definitely how PS1 devs envisioned BFRs so I guess I am not alone in associating mechs with BFRs and missile showers/OP guns.

There not really any rational backing about that belief because I am not in people's heads and cannot fund a survey to back it either.

Now that's only about the mech = BFR mental association. I do not know at all if people really want "overpowered BFR-style mechs". As a matter of fact, I think most do not. Yet, some do and a thread about them spawns once in a while.
So it's an assumption?

I am my fantasies about super MAXes that would be agile, stealthy and pack a lot of utilities along with an AI role. Now would it be balanced ? As in, would we need any soldiers with such a cool super armor ?

At least, your mech idea would not enter bases. It could however be as annoying as mosquitoes ever were in PS1 (from a ground soldier point of view). Or not, because given enough thought and effort, everything could become balanced.

But really, why not put it those abilities on soldier classes or ATVs ? Because we want mechs ?

Well, wanting something is a valid reason. I mean... I want separated driver/gunners on tanks. Others are against it.

No big deal, the devs will decide what is good for their game and we'll just see what happens in the end and choose to play it or not. If it fails, the people who enjoy it will simply play with less players.

Instant vehicle entrance and change of ownership in BF2142 irked me to no end. I never played that game again until recently and it reminded me why I hated it. It worked for a lot of people but just not for me.

Back to the bipeds, those roles could be put on any frame and balanced out so yes, we could have bipeds in PS2 just like there are ATVs, tanks and there could be buggies.

But as they get balanced to leave room for other roles on other platforms (i.e. soldiers, tanks, air vehicles, etc...), will we end up with something you people like or will players get disappointed ?

We may not know unless the devs try it.
Sorry, your English is throwing me slightly.

Certain aspects of the roles I mentioned could well be better suited to an agile/light mech, but we just can't know yet.

Edit:
Which is why I simply noted you made assumptions (speculated conditions of a mech) and gave a speculative judgement within a speculative context and using a PS1 analogy (BFRs).

Of course, I'm not saying you can't make that judgement, because I'm of the opinion it's quite easy to make such assesments and I don't think those kind of things need to be too far from the truth.
Where?

And as I made clear in the other thread, it wasn't speculative judgements I was opposed to.

Go back a couple posts of mine (first in this thread) and see that I beat you to this conclusion long, long ago. ;P Mechs =/= BFRs, however, BFRs == (OP) Mechs and therefore Mechs == BFRs (== OP Mechs) in the minds of most PS1 players (see the aforementioned assosiative reasons in that same post).

Possibly even if they'd be chicken sized. Though using a chicken sized mech (without a shield that can withstand a Magrider's continuous fire, of course) would probably go a long way to restoring the mental differentiation between mech and PS BFR.
I wasn't really talking about that, but okay.

sylphaen

2012-01-25, 06:16 PM

Sorry, your English is throwing me slightly.

Don't worry about it. I grew up in French so this happens once in a while.
:D

I just meant that I cannot read minds hence why I have no logical basis to support my opinion.

So yes, it's all an assumption/opinion.

The meaning associated to words is very much based on an individual's personal understanding of it. Words like freedom, courage and honor can be readily translated but contain a much greater meaning that may not be the same between individual and their culture.

Kind of like how the definitions of what is a republican or democrat can even differ between members of a same party.

Anyways, back to the topic, that's why it's hard to normalize ideas and meanings associated to words. I think people generally associate mechs to BFRs (as Big F****** Robots) whereas just saying bipeds would fit more your idea of mechs.

Of course, both are mechanized and fit into the "mechs" category. Overall, I think most of what we read in this thread stems from different ideas being associated by each individual to the expression "single person mechs".

Add-in the emotional factors from PS1 and single person MBTs and you realistically should not expect most to stay rational.

______

In the end, I think I understand what you mean and frankly, it would be possible to put light mech bipeds with height advantage and AI in PS2 but the important questions is how balanced it will be and how much room it will take roles-wise ?

There was a great diversity of roles in PS1. When OP BFRs came in, they overtook over all roles for off-base fighting (either by being better or by preventing other playstyles to be viable).

I believe that the important part of PS1 is to offer a niche room for all kinds of players so that they can enjoy what they like the most in large-scale battles.

Large-scale should not be a small fight model multiplied x10 in scale. The scale should be used to offer more playstyle diversity. That's the kind of balance idea I am trying to convey.

Light mechs ? Sure, why not. As long as they do not destroy the diversity in gameplay available in PS.

So to summarize, yes, I agree with you that it's possible but it should not destroy other niches/roles.

Edit: let me know if something is unclear due to language/grammar and I'll try to rephrase it. I can also detail more some ideas if it is unclear with this post. Thanks for understanding that I do not have a perfect english. FYI, just in case because there's always room to misinterpret written text: while some people are set in their crusade to prove people wrong, I do sincerely try to discuss ideas with people even though I may disagree with theirs. So if I sound like I come off too strong, it may be unintended. Just let me know.

And <3 !
:D

Bitmap

2012-01-25, 06:59 PM

I am imagining an exo-suit for the MAX, that you purchase form the vehicle terminal. Maybe something at the end of the MAX tree. Call it Heavy MAX?

like this (imagine the smaller character as the MAX):
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/G/Gears%20of%20War%203/Bulk%20Viewers/Xbox%20360/2010-05-21/GAM226.feat_cov.ch_silverback--article_image.jpg

That looks awsome. Just what I was talking about earlier, though I was picturing something looking more like the exosuits from the Matrix movies. Agile MAX-only single person transport option for the dedicated MAX user.

Metalsheep

2012-01-25, 07:15 PM

I like the idea of a "mech" being more of an Exo Suit rather than something like a BFR. Like an outdoor, Heavy MAX as has been said already. It could have about the same armor as a Lightning, maybe a little less with no shielding at all. And equip an AI/AV weapon, since the Lightning covers the AA aspect of the lighter vehicles. Like a machine gun and a shoulder mounted rocket launcher. Slower moving, but might be able to get places standard vehicles cannot.

The MBTs should be able to handle them easily 1v1. I would think the ExoSuit could be more like a Fire Support vehicle, it sticks with groups of infantry and lends its extra muscle. Great against softies and other light vehicles, weak against Aircraft, larger groups of softies, MBTs and other heavy vehicles.

Kind of like those AMP suits from Avatar, they're larger than MAX suits, but not as huge and powerful as the BFRs were.

I could also see how they could have utility outside of combat, such as a Heavy Lift vehicle for large engineering deployables or other heavy work. (Not that this should be included, but it makes a reason for them to exist in Lore for both combat and support work.)

Lord Paladin

2012-04-02, 12:37 AM

Grognard

2012-04-02, 01:04 AM

What if you made it so that 5 people, with different specialized MAX suits could combine them to form Voltron?

I would TOTALLY be down with that. And it would take five people... and you'd have to get the two guys in the legs to be really well coordinated.

Black candles, incense, and a bloody sacrifice... the dark arts are strong with this one...

Edit: ...and given the name, the irony is not lost on me :)

KrazeyVIII

2012-04-02, 02:21 AM

New forum feature!

When the word(s) mech and/or robot show up in the title of a new post, the author is first sent to the other threads immediately upon hitting send. Then two large robotic, mech if you will, arms come out of their speakers and rip their eyelids off and hold their head in place so they are FORCED to read what has already been said time and time again:

THERE WILL NOT BE MECH IN THE GAME NOW OR EVER. IT KILLED THE FIRST GAME AND IT WILL KILL THE SECOND

They are a useless addition and, as Malorn already said COUNTLESS times, they serve no purpose other than to just be 'cool'.

Do you want cool? or do you want a game that works? If you chose the former than may god have mercy on your soul. If you chose the former in PS1 then words cannot describe what should be done as punishment.

Malorn

2012-04-02, 02:45 AM

The ass that necroed this thread should be shot.

Sirisian

2012-04-02, 02:49 AM

Stop... If you are going to necro a 2 month old thread please take the time to read it in full and to understand both sides completely. Chances are your input or criticism is already covered after 29 pages. If you don't you end up with ignorant responses which look at problems as black and white like this:

Do you want cool? or do you want a game that works?

So let this thread drop again unless after reading 29 pages you have useful feedback that wasn't already raised in the 6 other threads.

Stew

2012-04-02, 04:09 AM

Before I begin, this thread isn't about BFRs. It's about a single person mech designed from scratch. Looking for input that would balance the idea. I get that some people don't like the look of mechs though. It would be appreciated that if you don't like mechs explain why. I'd be curious what you'd want if they were in.

I always felt that a mech in Planetside should have been a single person outdoor evolution to the MAX units. That is each faction has it's own variant. The design would be similar to a Mad Cat (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Timber_Wolf_%28Mad_Cat%29) in BattleTech with a custom design for each of the empires geared toward uniform movement. (The vanu would have scale plated armor for instance). The height would be scaled down to the height of 2 players stacked so not very tall but still enough room for a driver.

The armor would be twice as much as the lightning offset with weaknesses I'll describe later. The big change is to move a lot of features off to the skill tree such as shields and flight so having those would cost extra. Also the ammo would be reduced especially on the secondary shoulder weapons so it would need to resupply often.

Since vehicles will have components that can be individually damaged, as explained by Higby, this will work in well. The mech's components can be broken down into:

Cockpit
Left Arm - When damaged it slows the weapon on the arm or shuts it off
Right Arm
Left Shoulder - Secondary weapon upgrade slot. If damaged can slow down and shut off
Right Shoulder
Engines (In the back) - Slows shield regen and flight
Left Leg - When damaged the player slows down
Right Leg

The skill tree would allow upgrades on the following for instance:

Armor - Upgrades plate armor and the visual appearance of the mech
Weapons - AI, AV, AA and upgrades like more ammo or rockets. Depends on the empire
Legs - mobility upgrades
Shields - Unlocks the ability that is controlled by toggled. Upgrades for shield strength. Shares energy with flight
Flight - Unlocks the ability and upgrades like strafing along with the duration and thrust power
Sensors - To detect and warn about incoming players and vehicles and deployables (like mines).

These upgrades also all change the look of the mech. As a random example, say a player invests in sensors to detect cloakers that are getting close the upgrade would give an obvious cue to tell cloakers of the danger.

More often than not the mech would become immobalized or useless before dying. For instance if some players attacked the legs it might slow down too much to be useful so the player would need to get out and repair it.

Ideally it would need to be backed up by other players and would be vulnerable by itself. (Bailing onto it for instance, would probably be a valid strategy).

I know some people are going to think this sounds complex, but honestly the amount of skill upgrades Higby said was in the thousands for weapons and vehicle which leads me to believe vehicles are going to have very complex upgrade choices.

I left some stuff out to make the discussion open. I'm also not 100% sure my poll has all the possible options. I've been reading the mech threads from a long time and the recent ones to get an idea of the community's thoughts.

Dont ask such question in here

I think most people on this forums seams to be traumatized by the bfr from planetside so anything that looks like a bfr near and far Will be rejected whiout any consideration from those lol

Thats sad to be so closed mind MEch can be really cool if they are done rigth

We can also consider a MAX suit like a mini mech suits its a exoskeleton but tinyer than a MEch !

Mech if well balance can be great and also having custumisable mech can be even more awesome !

In every vehicules u can change the performance slots the weapons slots etc...

So i dont see the problem i find ur idea iteresting and also i will have to say that Planetside 2 can be the num 1 game with diversity and a brillant open wold !

people should be more opens to new idea and change thats dont affect the core !

Its like if some people dont want planetside 2 they must keep playing PS1 its like the gameplay of planetside 2 will be like game like BF3 MAG COD etc.. and others modern FPS

Ps1 was more like QUAKE , unreal tournament , or others games like this the gameplay itself the core will be totally different !

So it should be nice to not be closed mind to any idea and reject them whiout even try to give it a chance !

PS2 keep the open wold battle with real time strategies and awesome modern fps mechanics its not a copy and past of planetside 1 but it take the most important elements

Open wold , great team work , great comunication systhem , 3 empires , 3 different look , and the most important the freedom in actions and strategies :D

Stew

2012-04-02, 04:23 AM

New forum feature!

THERE WILL NOT BE MECH IN THE GAME NOW OR EVER. IT KILLED THE FIRST GAME AND IT WILL KILL THE SECOND

.

Mech are vehicules like any others ! if they are done rigth they will be no game killing or anything like it MAx are already tiny mech did MAX kill PS1 ?

time have kill planetside 1 not bfr and bfr were not done rigth !

Mech can serve Multi purpose because you can change every part of a mech for the legs to the weapons etc.. if done rigth it can be great and cool !

So if i follow what u said previously when u say (((do you want cool stuff))) ill say YEAH ! i want cool and usefull stuff as well !
I want my NC armor to look cool why ? i dont even see myself ? rigth ?

But i want to look cool because others will see me

I want cool paint for my tanks because it will look more bad ass

I will choose better games mechanics over cool stuff but i will not reject cool stuff to restrict my game experience to 1 ground vehicules such as 1 tank for NC ! I will take it as it is but down the road if the game suceed i would like to have more ad on and coll stuff but DONE RIght thats all !

So respect to mech and everything thats can be great if balenced !