New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Sirisian]

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. Check Repco Catalogue (https://www.catalogueau.com/repco/) and Autobarn Catalogue (https://www.catalogueau.com/autobarn/). (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.

[Malorn]

Please let us enjoy our solace of no mech crap in PS2 .

[Lonehunter]

I'll admit your mech idea is different then BFRs. The problem is a vehicle so powerful that only one person operates. It totally messes with the value of other vehicles. A 3man vehicle crew that has each spent a lot of skills in their trees in my opinion should be more powerful then anything one guy can bring.

This promotes cooperation

[Sirisian]

A 3 man vehicle crew that has each spent a lot of skills in their trees in my opinion should be more powerful then anything one guy can bring.
Yeah I'm imagining a tank shell doing some serious damage to it. Imagine hitting an arm or a shoulder slot on the top (assuming the player didn't unlock the shield and didn't turn it on in time). It might turn off and force the player to retreat. The idea would be an upgraded outdoor MAX so yeah not aiming for an uber killing machine. :) Just another vehicle.

[CutterJohn]

I don't entirely agree with the ideas for the vehicle, but I have no issues with mechs, provided the walking animations are done properly so that there is no foot sliding or standing at an angle on the side of a hill. Its just another vehicle, with a different look.

Ideally they would be slower than wheeled/tracked/hover vehicles, but would have the greatest ability to climb, and would be a unit suited to mountainous terrain.

I would also call them BFRs just to piss people off. :D

[kaffis]

No thanks.

More for the "single person" than the mech aspect.

We have single person mechs. They're called MAXes. And it should stay that way. Anything more powerful, and it's too good for a singler user.

Hell, I'd get rid of Lightnings, if it were up to me. And Reavers would be either two-seaters or lose a lot of their ground support efficacy.

Now, if you want to make MAXes a bit more relevant outdoors, I have no objection. AV MAXes have always struck me as a bit of a joke, for instance, and certainly AI MAXes suffer heavily at outdoor ranges.

[CutterJohn]

We have single person mechs. They're called MAXes. And it should stay that way. Anything more powerful, and it's too good for a singler user.

MAXs can go indoors. Vehicles can't. MAXs are/were horrible machines for outdoors use, due to a complete lack of self sufficiency(no self repairs like every single other infantry and vehicle in the game) and abysmal speed and hitpoints for a vehicle, even with run mode. Only the AA max was any good, since it had a monster range and could sit back behind the lines.


This would be a pretty cool mech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AaBbnBbms&feature=player_detailpage#t=46s


as would this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM&feature=player_detailpage#t=124s

[Malorn]

The biggest problem with them is they serve no purpose other than being "cool." They have no role in the game that isnt' filled by other vehicles, which means having them either makes them redundant/irrelevant, or OP because they render the other vehicles useless. And they absolutely need to be multi-manned vehicles, not doing so screws up the entire balance of vehicles which was one of the biggest problems with BFRs.

Just no, christ, people like you wanting something completely valueless in the game is what destroyed Planetside, so please excuse me if I kindly tell you to take your idea and sod off.

[PsychoXR-20]

Hell, I'd get rid of Lightnings, if it were up to me. And Reavers would be either two-seaters or lose a lot of their ground support efficacy.

Reavers and Lightnings are fine. Ironically, Lightnings are fine because of Reavers, and Reavers are fine because of how much god damned AA there is in the game. Does any other role in the game have as many counters, spread across as many roles as air does?

But I hate the idea of mechs. I think they look stupid, and they don't fit in with the theme of of the game, nor with the theme of the technology in the game.

[Traak]

Mechwarrior was a popular game in the days of yore when PS was launched. I think they were trying to attract the disenchanted MW players with the BFRs. I think Microsoft had announced no more MW games, ever.

Problem is, MW was a simulator that was very well done, where you fought OTHER customizable 'mechs. BFRs were not. Not simulators. Not customizable to any great extent. Not fighting other BFRs (they prefer to pick on softies, and run away shrieking if anything near their weight comes along), and not well done.

BFRs drastically decreased the quality of the game.

[Snow]

Ive go no beef against mechs if they are done right but I think Lonehunter187 has the right point, a one man vehicle should never be anywhere near as powerful as a vehicle that requires two or more players to control.
I think that MAXs fill the role of powerful single manned machines already and they do it well, what Sirisian has suggested sounds too much like taking a MAX unit and making it far more powerful and versatile.

A MAX unit was always vulnerable when alone but what you have suggested Sirisian sounds too self sufficient.

[CutterJohn]

They have no role in the game that isnt' filled by other vehicles, which means having them either makes them redundant/irrelevant, or OP because they render the other vehicles useless.

Then replace one of the vehicles with something a bit cooler. Wheres the harm in that? Its a futuristic shooter, but we're running around on ATVs?

Also, there are always more roles that can be added. More nuanced options that split the difference between other vehicles, or add previously missing roles on the battlefield.


Does any other role in the game have as many counters, spread across as many roles as air does?

Yes. All of them. Theres a ton of AA because there is a ton of air, and AA is the only viable counter to air, a role held by two units(well, three, counting bfrs). All other ground vehicles, and all infantry, have troubles with air units. Deli's could be a halfway decent AA platform, but even with 3 people, it was less effective than a skyguard.

[Aractain]

If mechs are to return they need to be multi person heavy tanks that move slowly and get transported around by dropship, not one man battlefield dominators.

[Vanir]

Only double the armour strength of a lightning? I don't see how that could be a game wrecker. Pluse I'd assume that skilling up in this would lock out masses of other skills. Meh, I don't see a problem with this as long as it was done right.

[Vancha]

I sort of agree with PsychoXR. I don't think the kind of single-player mechs I'd want to see and the way they'd be balanced would fit with the other vehicles in Planetside, but we'll see.

I mentioned in another thread how you could simply have a mech with the same speed, armour and weapons as a lightning and thus end up with a balanced mech, and what I'd like to see wouldn't deviate from that too much.

First of all, it would have auto run and walk modes, but it's auto run would be more like auto drive...running mechs look terrible unless they're gundam sorts of things. While auto-running it couldn't fire and it'd move at ATV/buggy speed, but while walking it'd be slower than a lightning. It'd probably have more armour than a lightning too, but definitely less than an MBT.

Skill-tree wise it sounds like vehicles in general will be able to choose between different roles, so I imagine you'd be able to choose between AI, AV, AA, pure transportation and other options (no mix'n'match), but due to it's height vulnerability and speed while walking, it'd probably be suited to a fair range. Too vulnerable up close, but too inaccurate to act like artillery.

[Sentrosi]

Those are some great ideas Sirisan and I see you put a lot of thought into this post. And you went out on a limb to ask for an opinion from a community that has had a bad taste in their mouths whenever someone mentions mechs or BFRs in Planetside 2.

But I'm going to have to agree with most of the others here. A one-man walking tank puts too much power in one person's hands.

What if instead of just a one person mech we have a crew of three inside a mech. I'm envisioning something like Star Trek Online has. Or I think it has, as I never played the game and just going off what I though the game was about.

Role: Driver
The driver guides the mech across the face of Auraxis. The driver is responsible for the loadout of the battle system at the expense of weight. Putting a couple of Gauss cannons on the mech would make it walk slower, but putting four light guns on it would make it a faster mech. Think of the driver as Flight Engineer who's responsible for weights and balances of the aircraft.
Role: Gunner
The gunner selects and fires the weapons and can make quick repairs to the fire control systems at the expense of another system through a skill tree. (IE, diverting power from the LRM bays and into a Gauss cannon)
Role: Engineer
The engineer is responsible for the power plants and shielding units within the mech. The engineer can do quick repairs on systems that are damaged at the expense of another unit. (IE re-routing power from the left arm to the torso)Again, this would be through the use of a skill tree.

Now quick repairs would only last so long based on use. Think of repeatedly bending a piece of aluminum in half. Eventually the single piece of metal will break in two. Now if a system is completely destroyed, there would be no way the system could be used again unless the mech heads back to the nearest friendly base for a complete overhaul. This would take the mech out of the fight until the repairs are completed.

Now these three would be 'attuned' to each other. In other words, they could only operate the mech if all three are available. This could potentially cut down on the number of mechs that are on-continent at one time, as all three would have to be online. It also removes three potential soldiers from the battlefield.

[Bruttal]

Am sorry but we already have Max suites there not much different. just a lil weeker but from the sounds of it you want a BFR slightly bigger then a MAX. I say Nay

[1Shotwonder]

He has a good idea but everyone that stopped playing so because of bfrs will not agree on this its true at first bfrs were way to over powered now they are so nerfed its like a lightings armor so they aren't anything without support if they or some type of mech was put in ps how they are now they would just be another vehicle not a one man army like the original bfrs... its all about the way they are balanced and placed in the game.... and with ps2 going to have a lot of outdoor fights I think it would be a cool idea but again its all on how its put in to the game plain and simple.....but I am sure it won't be for a while if ever we do see bfrs because ps2 is like a restart of ps from the begining and making what ps was supposed to be in ps2

[Headrattle]

I don't like Mechs because of their obvious design flaws. They are over complicated and attempt to fill the same role as a tank, which fills the role better given the same technology level.

Examples Why:
More surface area that needs to be armored, thus more weight needed to get the same amount of armor as a tank (which is essentially a box and has higher surface to area ratio.)
Legs would have to have weaker armor in order to walk around and yet, the mechs would be reliant on them to work at all. If you take out a tank tread, it can still fire. If you take out a Mech leg, it falls down and while it may not be destroyed, it won't be able to do anything. True, treads are a vulnerability as well, but treads can be more easily armored then legs.

So why bother? Just take whatever guns you wanted and put it on a tank. It would be more effective then a Mech.

Maxes and thus powersuits make sense. Essentially a small infantry like tank that has the better parts of infantry, but with the better parts of armor.

However, I will admit that Mechs are cool. But I don't think they are that cool, and I am not a fan of them being on Planetside. BFRs hurt. They didn't do all the damage, but they are a shining example of how the PS team just didn't get it. I defended every decision that they made including the BFRs, but when the reality of the BFRs struck, I lost hope. Like I said in another thread, they gave us BFRs before many of the cool things that we asked for and eventually got (and those things we asked for were cool.)

Essentially, because BFRs hurt so much and they are so much a symbol of the downfall of PS1, we shouldn't have them in PS2. Just as I wouldn't hang pictures of my ex-wife in the house where my new wife and I live.

[Logit]

Mechs and BFRs have both become swear words in the world of Planetside, and simply mentioning a variation of one will have a vast majority of the veteran community totally against it.

We have MAX suits, this should be enough. Tanks require a min of 2 people, why should 1 man have all this killing power?

[Hamma]

Great ideas but I am going to have to agree with the majority that this idea just seems redundant with what we have available and makes one person just to powerful in the grand scheme of things, ultimately making other vehicles underutilized.

[Redshift]

Mechs are a toxic brand in planetside now, the devs know putting them in would anger the community because of bfr's. You'll never see a mech in planetside again.

[CutterJohn]

Great ideas but I am going to have to agree with the majority that this idea just seems redundant with what we have available and makes one person just to powerful in the grand scheme of things, ultimately making other vehicles underutilized.

We don't know what we have available. Just sayin..

Could easily ditch something like the lightning or fury for a small 1 man mech suit.

[Hamma]

We don't?

Pretty sure we are going to see the same vehicles make a return this time around.

[Sirisian]

Only double the armour strength of a lightning? I don't see how that could be a game wrecker. Pluse I'd assume that skilling up in this would lock out masses of other skills. Meh, I don't see a problem with this as long as it was done right.
Exactly. I imagine the same will be true for other vehicles in the game.


What if instead of just a one person mech we have a crew of three inside a mech.
I've heard that discussion before for having a separate driver and gunner. It suffers from the same flaw as a liberator. I always wanted to control my own weapons. I was lucky with the liberator because it had a front gun.


Skill-tree wise it sounds like vehicles in general will be able to choose between different roles, so I imagine you'd be able to choose between AI, AV, AA, pure transportation and other options (no mix'n'match), but due to it's height vulnerability and speed while walking, it'd probably be suited to a fair range. Too vulnerable up close, but too inaccurate to act like artillery.
Yeah no mix and match of the weapons. You hit it right on the head for what I was imagining as the range. I was imagining it would be difficult to attack a tank directly on an open landscape, but maneuvering around trees and such in a forest would be its optimal playing field.

Comparing it to a lightning, the mech would be slow. A lightning would actually be on part with fighting the mech ideally. I'm imagining there will be lightning upgrades if it's in the game so you have to imagine it too will have a huge skill-tree unlocking things.

Mechs are a toxic brand in planetside now, the devs know putting them in would anger the community because of bfr's. You'll never see a mech in planetside again.
You'd be amazed. Only a few veterans really remember BFRs when they were overpowered. I had a friend that played on and off again and played only after they were nerfed so he has no recollection of any BFR problem. I know what you're thinking "But they were overpowered before so it's a bad idea" but he honestly doesn't understand that no matter how many times I say it. :lol:

[Raymac]

A rose by any other name is still a rose. If there is something that even reminds the Planetside playerbase of BFRs, then it's not going to be received well, no matter what. Too many bad memories.

[WarChimp130]

No Mech's.

[Vancha]

No Mech's.
No Mech's whats?

[WarChimp130]

Period, lol.

[Vancha]

:bang:

[Sirisian]

I guess it's hard to explain that this would be similar to a ground based reaver. The reaver is a single person vehicle (and will be in the new Planetside 2) that has machine guns on it's primary weapon slot and rockets on its secondary. It will feature a huge upgrade skill-tree that I imagine many reaver pilots will enjoy.

The intention was to make a ground based version of it. When people suggest stuff like "nah make it uber powerful 3 man tank" that's not the idea at all. I want a simple mech that's fully balanced into the game. A reaver that catches one in the open would basically be at an even footing with a slight advantage probably. (Unless the mech is set up with like AA secondary rockets then it might stand a chance).

Also as Vancha pointed out if you don't like mechs it would be appreciated if you explain why. Saying stuff like "oh you mean a BFR" kind of shows you missed the idea of the thread or you're a reaver user that likes being the only thing that can zip around the map and kill both vehicles and infantry.

[Grimster]

Well I think most Planetside fans finds the term mech highly toxic due to the history we have with BFRs and to be honest I would be very surprised if SOE ever decided to implement some kind of mech because that would really be placing them back out on the mine field.

Your ideas are interesting but like previously said I think it is better to simply skip mechs and put more focus on the regular vehicles that are available to us all.

The only good thing about BFRs today in PS1 is that they make excellent bullet magnets. :)

[Raymac]

It sounds like Maxes are going to be pretty customizable, so that may have to be the next best thing. If something is even close to a BFR, people will still call it a BFR. It's like the old expression "perception is 90% of reality". If it is perceived to be similar to a BFR, then it might as well be a BFR. Fair? No, but thats life.

[Sirisian]

It sounds like Maxes are going to be pretty customizable, so that may have to be the next best thing.
I'm not a fan of maxes honestly. Also this is more of a vehicle, not an indoor unit designed for base defense/offense.
If something is even close to a BFR, people will still call it a BFR. It's like the old expression "perception is 90% of reality". If it is perceived to be similar to a BFR, then it might as well be a BFR. Fair? No, but thats life.
Speak for yourself. I played the game just like the rest of you during that time. I didn't even care when they were overpowered.

It bothered me far more when Reaver rockets killed infantry after a few hits honestly. That seemed far more overpowered than the BFRs ever were. They didn't remove the Reaver. They fixed it.


The only good thing about BFRs today in PS1 is that they make excellent bullet magnets. :)
Indeed. Seems like every time I pulled out my lancer I'd be joined with like 10 of them and the BFR would blow up instantly. That's one of my reasons for making a new mech smaller with less height advantage.

[Raymac]

I'm not a fan of maxes honestly. Also this is more of a vehicle, not an indoor unit designed for base defense/offense.

Speak for yourself. I played the game just like the rest of you during that time. I didn't even care when they were overpowered.

It bothered me far more when Reaver rockets killed infantry after a few hits honestly. That seemed far more overpowered than the BFRs ever were. They didn't remove the Reaver. They fixed it.


I use Maxes quite a bit outdoors, I mean the AA Max obviously, and even the AV Max (though I prefer the Phoenix if I'm going after vehicles since the NC AV Max is meh). You may very well be able to customize a Max to something similar to what you propose. We'll have to see.

As for the BFRs, I think you are in the minority on your opinion of BFRs. I see your point of view, but for the vast majority of Planetside players, BFR is a 4 letter word. If today, Higby announced that BFRs are back for PS2, you know you'd see a revolt. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make your opinion wrong at all, it just means you're not going to get much support.

[Kurtz]

Noobs are like Old People...They complain to everyone who will listen.

I've fallen and can't get up. Someone make me a "I win button".

[Snow]

Indeed. Seems like every time I pulled out my lancer I'd be joined with like 10 of them and the BFR would blow up instantly. That's one of my reasons for making a new mech smaller with less height advantage.

What you're saying is that mechs should be single manned, be able to equip any variety of AA, AT or AP weaponry and be smaller so that they're less of a target?
How could that not result in being completely over powered?

I don't see how any form of mech or walker could be integrated without causing major balancing issues or making other vehicles redundant.

[Sirisian]

As for the BFRs, I think you are in the minority on your opinion of BFRs. I see your point of view, but for the vast majority of Planetside players, BFR is a 4 letter word. If today, Higby announced that BFRs are back for PS2, you know you'd see a revolt. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make your opinion wrong at all, it just means you're not going to get much support.
nah the revolt would be tiny. I made the poll public so I could verify that it is indeed just veteran players that went through the BFR fiasco that don't like it. They're stuck in the mindset of BFR as the only implementation of a mech pretty much. Can't blame them though.

What you're saying is that mechs should be single manned, be able to equip any variety of AA, AT or AP weaponry and be smaller so that they're less of a target?
How could that not result in being completely over powered?

I don't see how any form of mech or walker could be integrated without causing major balancing issues or making other vehicles redundant.
They'd be fairly weakly armored and get destroyed by other vehicles which makes them balanced. What changes do you see? Limiting the guns to machine guns and just keeping AV rockets with no other upgrades so it would be an identical ground version of the Reaver?

I'd actually like that. It could be a nice common pool type vehicle in that respect like the lightning. Or a replacement for the lightning since the game already has tanks.

[Logit]

The only obvious resolution is to make all vehicles have the ability to transform into 1 giant super robot, exactly like they do in the Power Rangers.

It has every weapon in the game and requires all 1000 people on the cont to man it.

So we will have 3 Giants Super Robots fighting for every inch of the continent, drinking resources with the thirst of 4000 Diesel Engines.

Than, and only than, will I be on board with any idea remotely close to BFR's.

[Malorn]

Then replace one of the vehicles with something a bit cooler. Wheres the harm in that? Its a futuristic shooter, but we're running around on ATVs?

Are you suggesting we replace ATVs with mechs? ATVS are lightly armed/armored and are designed for very fast infantry ground transport that is completely lost when you replace them with mechs. They have a specific role, and are fun to drive and zip around on.

Also, there are always more roles that can be added. More nuanced options that split the difference between other vehicles, or add previously missing roles on the battlefield.

If you think of a role not already occupied by an existing vehicle that a mech would be really good at, please let me know.

I'm of the rather solid opinion mechs have no role on their own because they are basically tanks with legs. So you have either tanks or mechs, and tanks are a lot better because
1) they have lower & smaller profiles (thus taking less damage while still peforming their job)
2) more stable shooting platforms (smooth ride vs bobbing from walking)
3) better serve the "armor" role by shielding infantry from small arms (mech legs dont do that very well)
4) faster & more maneuverable

And the only thing mechs have is height for better firing angles, but that comes at the cost of being much easier to hit and thus taking a lot more damage. Steep price.


Yes. All of them. Theres a ton of AA because there is a ton of air, and AA is the only viable counter to air, a role held by two units(well, three, counting bfrs). All other ground vehicles, and all infantry, have troubles with air units. Deli's could be a halfway decent AA platform, but even with 3 people, it was less effective than a skyguard.

The state of air balance for PS2 can't really be gauged effectively by looking at PS1.

* They stated that there would be "viable" infantry anti-air.
* Flying will take a lot more skill so we'll likely see fewer pilots from that alone (and at least fewer effective pilots)
* cert roles means the one-man-army mosq/reaver pilots are unlikely to exist, those players will likely gravitate towards being full on pilots or more infantry-oriented since they cannot do both simultaneously as in PS1
* vehicles can get various upgrades, including anti-air capabilties
* we don't know the state of repair/rearm in PS2 - this was a HUGE factor to the popularity of aircraft in PS1. Before repair-rearm you actually didn't see a lot of aircraft.
* we don't know what sort of vehicle timers exist in PS2 and whether they are on shared cooldowns - this made a big difference also when they cut the timer from 10 and 5 and made it easy to have both mosquito and reaver in a bundle in PS1. That + repair rearm had a drastic increase in aircraft population.

That's a lot of different stuff there and that makes it very difficult to gauge whether we need specific anti-air.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Skyguard get replaced by an empire-specific buggy anti-air upgrade. Though the Thresher with flak guns does sort of seem ridiculously OP.

[Sirisian]

Than, and only than, will I be on board with any idea remotely close to BFR's.
What idea close to BFRs? Do you mean the few posts where people asked for multi-person BFRs?

This thread is strictly about a single person mech and how it could be implemented fairly. Again you're probably thinking of BFRs too much to have an open-mind about the issue. (I don't blame you. It seems that's the general consensus on this board about a lot of topics).


If you think of a role not already occupied by an existing vehicle that a mech would be really good at, please let me know.

Maneuverable land vehicle for the new terrains. Higby said there was terrain where tanks would rock at with open territory and other places where only planes could venture. I'm picturing a place like a forest environment where infantry is running around. Maneuvering a tank might be a PITA whereas a mech could walk around trees. (This could also be used for complicated terrain that bumpy).

I'm also imagining it as a hit and run vehicle similar in skill level to the Reaver. Nice medium range vehicle. It could strafe behind rocks and trees for cover. Doing that in a tank (a realistic tank like we'll have in the new game) is much harder.


I'm of the rather solid opinion mechs have no role on their own because they are basically tanks with legs. So you have either tanks or mechs, and tanks are a lot better because
1) they have lower & smaller profiles (thus taking less damage while still peforming their job)
2) more stable shooting platforms (smooth ride vs bobbing from walking)
3) better serve the "armor" role by shielding infantry from small arms (mech legs dont do that very well)
4) faster & more maneuverable

This idea isn't to make a walking tank... not sure where you got that. It's not designed to replace a tank at all. Ideally a tank would fairly easily kill one of these.
1) The height I said would be only twice as tall as a person making them less of an easy target.
2) The head bobbing is an implementation problem. It could easily be fixed to be a smooth ride. (Think mechwarrior or BF 2142 I guess which has smooth mech movement.
3) Not what these mechs are designed for. Their suppressive fire to be used in finding and attacking enemies in hard to maneuver places.
4) Depends on the terrain. Remember the physics are being changed for tanks so they have momentum. Imagine driving a tank into a forest. It might not be as easy as it once was. It would however be a mech's advantage to move and hide behind rocks and trees and fire a barrage of missiles once in a while.


And the only thing mechs have is height for better firing angles, but that comes at the cost of being much easier to hit and thus taking a lot more damage. Steep price.

That's why I suggested making them only twice as tall as a player. That's significantly smaller than a BFR in the game.

[Logit]

What idea close to BFRs? Do you mean the few posts where people asked for multi-person BFRs?

This thread is strictly about a single person mech and how it could be implemented fairly. Again you're probably thinking of BFRs too much to have an open-mind about the issue. (I don't blame you. It seems that's the general consensus on this board about a lot of topics).

You want a Mech? There are 3 Max variants that have you ready for almost every situation in the game.

Mech's are a bad idea, giving too much power to 1 person is a balance nightmare. Reduce the armor all you want, it will just promote people to camp and hide which is what the current BFR's already do.

[Sirisian]

You want a Mech? There are 3 Max variants that have you ready for almost every situation in the game.
Yes. Maxes aren't vehicles that can be ridden in and repaired. It's like saying "why do we have a fury? It launches AV rockets. The max does that and is fast when running". Different play styles.

Mech's are a bad idea, giving too much power to 1 person is a balance nightmare. Reduce the armor all you want, it will just promote people to camp and hide which is what the current BFR's already do.
I don't see where there would be too much power. Reavers camp and hide already behind mountains. Apparently you forgot that. They also hover and launch rockets. The idea I proposed is a balanced system. I also listed many weaknesses and way to defeat them. Just shooting them is enough to destroy components. Even if someone spent certs to get a shield it would be a momentary defense and not a forever effect. Something to turn on for a few seconds. (Like if a reaver comes flying down for an easy kill).

[Death2All]

I think the poll speaks for itself that most people within the community are totally opposed to the idea.

I'm noticing a reoccurring theme that if people don't agree with you outright then you have to argue and try to sway their opinion. Not everyone is going to like every idea they hear, especially if it resembles BFRs, one of the biggest scapegoats for the demise of Planetside, in the slightest.

[Sirisian]

I think the poll speaks for itself that most people within the community are totally opposed to the idea."The community of veterans" yeah. Though I kind of figured this was the case having read most of the BFR threads.


I'm noticing a reoccurring theme that if people don't agree with you outright then you have to argue and try to sway their opinion. Not everyone is going to like every idea they hear, especially if it resembles BFRs, one of the biggest scapegoats for the demise of Planetside, in the slightest.
Indeed. Though not so much to sway their opinions. More just to see if there are any good ideas for the game if the developers do indeed implement something. I doubt they care if a few veterans hate change. If they implement something cool they know the veteran players are probably going to get over it.

[Logit]

This thread is going to give me diarrhea I know it.

Reavers can no longer hover, thus taking away pretty much all of it's camping capabilities.

[Redshift]

Maneuverable land vehicle for the new terrains. Higby said there was terrain where tanks would rock at with open territory and other places where only planes could venture. I'm picturing a place like a forest environment where infantry is running around. Maneuvering a tank might be a PITA whereas a mech could walk around trees. (This could also be used for complicated terrain that bumpy).

The idea of that environment is to not have vehicles there.... making a vehicle that can be there kinda ruins the point

[Raymac]

Bigger than a Max, but smaller than a BFR = too niche.

It's like if I were to ask for an aircraft that had a little more firepower than the Mosq to be able to attack ground targets, but still not be as big or heavy hitting as the Reaver, it would be the same thing. It's too much of a niche item to see in the game.

[Raymac]

Reavers can no longer hover, thus taking away pretty much all of it's camping capabilities.

Whoa, when did that happen? I know they are updating the flight mechanics, but did they say they are removing hover?

[Sirisian]

Whoa, when did that happen? I know they are updating the flight mechanics, but did they say they are removing hover?
Yeah I thought I've read everything in the game. I thought they were keeping VTOL.

[PsychoXR-20]

The question that needs to be asked is: Why do we need a mech? What does a mech do that a tank can't?

And "Because it's cool" isn't an answer.

[Logit]

Yeah I thought I've read everything in the game. I thought they were keeping VTOL.

OK, don't everyone shit their pants lol. I was assuming part of the new flight mechanics wouldn't allow the hover.

My b.

[Chaff]

Not into the Mech idea after seeing the BFR fiasco.

I think there is merit close to the Mech idea. How about an ULTRA-Max ?
It should be a VERY difficult cert-tree to attain. It should be close to tank, but also yield high XP/BEP to those who kill it. New things aren't bad. The players in this game will always find a weakspot on anything this game has at inception, or chooses to add later.

NC ULTRA MAX: Increase/improve everything it does now 20% (incl ammo)
TR ULTRA MAX: Allow to rotate 45 degrees more when in lock-down + 20% ROF + 25% ammo.
VS ULTRA MAX: Agility up 10% + 5% ROF + 25% ammo + 10% more damage
....whatever....details get tweeked in Beta.

[p0intman]

don't put mechs in planetside period.

kthnx.

[Raymac]

don't put mechs in planetside period.

kthnx.

So take Maxes out?

[p0intman]

So take Maxes out?
I would tentatively be in favor of that, actually.

[Malorn]

What idea close to BFRs? Do you mean the few posts where people asked for multi-person BFRs?

This thread is strictly about a single person mech and how it could be implemented fairly. Again you're probably thinking of BFRs too much to have an open-mind about the issue. (I don't blame you. It seems that's the general consensus on this board about a lot of topics).
BFRs were also single-man vehicles. Or did you forget that? They were also highly mobile with flight variants that made them even more ridiculous.

Maneuverable land vehicle for the new terrains. Higby said there was terrain where tanks would rock at with open territory and other places where only planes could venture. I'm picturing a place like a forest environment where infantry is running around. Maneuvering a tank might be a PITA whereas a mech could walk around trees. (This could also be used for complicated terrain that bumpy).

I'm also imagining it as a hit and run vehicle similar in skill level to the Reaver. Nice medium range vehicle. It could strafe behind rocks and trees for cover. Doing that in a tank (a realistic tank like we'll have in the new game) is much harder.
Role overlap. Why would you use this mech over a Reaver? For rugged terrain the reaver is the preferred supriority vehicle, being the rough equivalent to a helicopter gunship in Afghanistan. The reaver is also faster and more maneuverable.


This idea isn't to make a walking tank... not sure where you got that. It's not designed to replace a tank at all. Ideally a tank would fairly easily kill one of these.
Because in every other context mechs are functional tank replacements. I was describing the only meaningful role they can possibly provide to Planetside.

1) The height I said would be only twice as tall as a person making them less of an easy target.
3) Not what these mechs are designed for. Their suppressive fire to be used in finding and attacking enemies in hard to maneuver places.
4) Depends on the terrain. Remember the physics are being changed for tanks so they have momentum. Imagine driving a tank into a forest. It might not be as easy as it once was. It would however be a mech's advantage to move and hide behind rocks and trees and fire a barrage of missiles once in a while.

That's why I suggested making them only twice as tall as a player. That's significantly smaller than a BFR in the game.

You're basically describing one of the large MAX suits they had in the movie Avatar. Which is just a MAX...only a little bigger.

So you want a Reaver-MAX. By definition...role overlap. If you want a small mech, that's called a MAX. If you want a bigger mech, that's called a BFR.

And the vehicle you describe is in every way inferior to a Reaver and the Reaver does its role better.


The vehicle you describe will either be completely worthless or it will be good enough to replace reavers, tanks, and/or MAX outdoors.

Again, why the hell do we need this thing? The only role you've provided is a tight niche that the reaver already excels at.

[CutterJohn]

Are you suggesting we replace ATVs with mechs? ATVS are lightly armed/armored and are designed for very fast infantry ground transport that is completely lost when you replace them with mechs. They have a specific role, and are fun to drive and zip around on.

Who says mechs are slow? A small 1 man deal that weighs couple tons? Could be quite spry. It would be fun to zip around on a mech too.



If you think of a role not already occupied by an existing vehicle that a mech would be really good at, please let me know.

I'm of the rather solid opinion mechs have no role on their own because they are basically tanks with legs. So you have either tanks or mechs, and tanks are a lot better because
1) they have lower & smaller profiles (thus taking less damage while still peforming their job)
2) more stable shooting platforms (smooth ride vs bobbing from walking)
3) better serve the "armor" role by shielding infantry from small arms (mech legs dont do that very well)
4) faster & more maneuverable

And the only thing mechs have is height for better firing angles, but that comes at the cost of being much easier to hit and thus taking a lot more damage. Steep price.


1. Quite true. Though I think you underestimate how tall tanks are. That mech in district 9 would be only slightly higher.
2. I fear you have not spent enough time off road in a wheeled or tracked vehicle, nor on a horse. The ride on rough ground will definitely be smoother on the horse at a canter or gallop since they adjust their legs to the terrain rather than bouncing over it, and the turrets will be stabilized for both anyway.
3. Not all vehicles serve this role, or need to.
4. Faster over certain types of terrain and not as maneuverable.

A mech would not be heavily armored. Foot loading would be too high. They could never be walking tanks, and would fail at the job. Their purpose would be highly mobile scouts/fire support in rough terrain, like mountainous areas and thick forests. They could step over obstacles that would be insurmountable, possibly even climb somewhat with the right foot and leg design. They are tall, sure, but they can turn, sidestep, etc, to fit through tight areas, and are much narrower than tanks/apcs/trucks. Anything you can do or anyplace you can go on legs a mech could pretty much follow, so long as whatever it was supported its weight. Mechs would suck as badly on flat desert as tanks do in the mountains.

[NivexQ]

This is exactly how I originally envisioned bfrs. Sadly, the planetside community will never support them, because they're completely thick-skulled at this point from SOE's lack of, well, doing... anything. BFRs could work, but it's priot implementation has ruined the original idea and prevented any further ideas from being pursued. Honestly i'd analogize with communism but I don't wanna be flamed... but here's one.

When Obama was running for president, black comedians were going all out basically saying "Don't f*** this up or we ain't gettin another chance for 100 years"

The BFR concept is a great idea (not original, but great), that was very poorly executed. Nobody will give it a chance, and every time a new player in Planetside 2 says "Man this is great but mechs would be even better" (and i know they will) all the vets will immediately start harassing the newbie to refute his statement and never mention it again :(

[Malorn]

The word "Obama" has no place here; keep your politics to the politics forum.

Sadly, the planetside community will never support them, because they're completely thick-skulled at this point from SOE's lack of, well, doing... anything. BFRs could work, but it's priot implementation has ruined the original idea and prevented any further ideas from being pursued.

Also, it's not thick-skulled to dislike something because it has no functional purpose. Quite the opposite, actually.

And yes, BFRs could have "worked", as in, we could have tolerated their existence. But that doesn't change the fact that their existence was meaningless. They served no purpose other than ruining the game.

Someone thought it would be cool to have mechs. And if you ask people "Hey, are mechs cool!?!?" Many people would say yes. Because mechs are, in fact, cool. Are they good for gameplay? No. Should we add them because they're cool? Hell no! Should we add a different implementation after we already got burned by it and ruined Planetside 1? Jesus fuck no!

[Kietharr]

No robots please, had enough of that crap in the first game.

If you want a single person vehicle, use a lightning tank. Shit they could make faction specific light tanks for all I care, I just don't want to see robots. Stupid aesthetic, doesn't belong in this game.

[NivexQ]

The word "Obama" has no place here; keep your politics to the politics forum.



Also, it's not thick-skulled to dislike something because it has no functional purpose. Quite the opposite, actually.

And yes, BFRs could have "worked", as in, we could have tolerated their existence. But that doesn't change the fact that their existence was meaningless. They served no purpose other than ruining the game.

Someone thought it would be cool to have mechs. And if you ask people "Hey, are mechs cool!?!?" Many people would say yes. Because mechs are, in fact, cool. Are they good for gameplay? No. Should we add them because they're cool? Hell no! Should we add a different implementation after we already got burned by it and ruined Planetside 1? Jesus fuck no!

Excuse me? Since when is referencing a name a discussion a politics?

Also, you're correct, it isn't thick-skulled when there is no functional purpose. But that statement right there seems thick-skulled in itself. Just because there was no functional purpose for BFRs in Planetside, doesn't mean there couldn't be in Planetside 2. You're just assuming that the game will be identical and there couldn't possibly be any other changes to accommodate that. And on another note, the BFR integration itself didn't kill Planetside; the support thereafter killed it. Once that type of game changing thing is implemented, there is usually a large amount of feedback, and action taken due to said feedback. In Planetside's case, there was no action taken to please the community. THAT killed Planetside.

Maybe the term "thick-skulled" was a bad word. How about... unreceptive?

The vast majority of Planetside players seem to be unreceptive to ideas if even a hint of past failure is lurking within.

[Talek Krell]

What you describe seems to have no purpose that couldn't be better and more engagingly fulfilled by a coordinated infantry squad. Your desire for it seems to be split between "mechs are cool" and "I don't like having to work with other people" (nicely highlighted by wanting to including the majority of the biffers most problematic features in your cert tree). The latter is a sentiment that I would like kept as far away from PS2 development as possible, as I believe it to be anathema to the nature of the game. The former is not actually an argument. Cats are also cool. I don't see why the devs should be spending time or resources on them either.

[Sirisian]

Your desire for it seems to be split between "mechs are cool" and "I don't like having to work with other people" (nicely highlighted by wanting to including the majority of the biffers most problematic features in your cert tree).
Nah it's almost 100% based on "mechs are cool". I think the second sentiment your seeing is a byproduct of the first. They're so cool they'll be used too much. Then again solo play is already inherent in Mosquito and Reaver combat along with the lightning and ATVs. (You really only see forced teamwork with the tanks and deliverer type vehicles). The coolness factor definitely plays into the hatred I think. You have to imagine the skill-trees for everything else in the game is going to be utterly massive. Once you get past that it starts to make sense why I listed all those upgrades and choices for the user. Ideally you can't use them all. I believe you spend cert points or something to unlock them after training them. I think...

It's not like I'm suggesting adding a starhawk type mech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCbS_zAqxwo#t=48s) to the game. (Which is in another Sony game already). That would be unbalanced. :rofl:

[Treerat]

You have guts posting that in a place like this. Not because it couldn't be an interesting idea (or give rise to new ideas), but because of the sheer amount of pent-up nerd rage still lingering from the BFRs. What makes it really irritating for me that is that all this BFR-hate is coming from self-declared "elites" who utterly and completely failed at handling the BFR because, despite all of the community managers efforts, they refused to budge one inch from their "fire until it blows up or kill you then bring in the next guy" tactics. It seems as if because they unable or unwilling to adapt away from their previous concepts, they assumed no one else could and therefore the BFR was "unbalanced." Though their antics did provide me with a number of laughs.

I particularly enjoyed watching some of Malnorn's beloved Liberty members throw themselves at a pair of TR two-seat BFRs with AV load outs in a column of Vanguards, only to be completely obliterated because they kept charging in two or three at a time and shooting at different BFRs like knights galloping at a formation of riflemen. Apparently the concept of fanning out to increase the time the BFRs would need to focus both sets of weaponry on a single tank each and concentrating their fire on one BFR to overwhelm it's defenses (a tactic straight of WWII used by American Sherman tanks to counter the Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger tanks superior gun and armor) was beyond them. It was as enjoyable as watching the "elite" outfits of Markov spend a full minute shooting at a parked BFR's body with rifles and heavy assault (most of whom I found out didn't have have AP ammo loaded), then get pissed when the driver came back from their bio break and proceeded to waddle his BFR away with only some damage to the armor and a few items in the trunk destoryed. Apparently the concept of crippling the legs with (again) concentrated fire so it couldn't move away or disabling the shield generator so the vehicles and AV-equipped people outside could add their much heavier firepower to the mix never crossed the empty space that passed for brains among them. In fact I would go so far as to say that that was the ultimate weapon of the BFR; it completely destroyed the "vets" ability to think in anything resembling a rational manner (as shown by this thread) and crippled the more sensible players through making us laugh until we passed out watching the self-declared "elite" repeat the same mistakes over and over then call those who had adapted to a changed situation "noobs" because we didn't agree with them.

I know I had no problem disabling BFRs. I would go as far to say as I found it easier to disable a BFR than any other vehicle short of ANTs, ATVs, or Harassers (and that only due to them being little more than mine bait). With an rifle, yellow ammo, and a little patience I could do enough damage to disable their close-in weapons and cripple their close-range sensors from a distance which made them extremely vulnerable to close-assault. If the terrain was favorable to it, I could improvise an anti-armor ambush with ES-AV or a Deci to target their legs (impairing their mobility) or shield generator (leaving them exposed to attack from vehicles, long-range AV, and other BFRs) then toss a jammer to cover my retreat back into the trees or rocks (the much-maligned fixed surge worked beautifully for that). Even something as simple as running between their legs or behind them and planting a mine or spitfire was incredibly effective at sending them packing for the simplicity of the method. Yet I don't recall seeing one BFR-hate spamming CR4 or CR5 even attempting something that simple even when I suggested it - usually because the response was "fuck off noob, you don't have as many kills as I do".

Yet that was exactly the point of BFRs - instead of being an all-or-nothing prospect like other vehicles, it was possible to drive them off for prolonged periods of time, and to destroy them through the concerted efforts of multiple people. Something that so many "vets" professed to encourage, yet when the need for that sort of cooperation appeared, all they did was become a mob of crying toddlers who spent more time arguing about who hated BFRs more than coming up with counters or even directing battles.

Really the only problem I had with them was how common they were initially, and that wasn't unique to BFRs so I wasn't nearly as upset as they were about it. From the time I started playing until the day I quit Planetside, going outside always resulted in having to dodge the hordes of Reavers and Mosquitos hovering for infantry to spam that were piloted by clones carrying heavy assault, a Decimator, and and having Engineering and Medic certed. If anything the BFRs were a change from that swarm of useless goons; easier to avoid, easier to fight, and much more likely to be piloted by someone who understood the value of preserving equipment instead of getting their crew killed trying to get that one last kill. Not to mention that BFRs worked extremely well with infantry who could use their shields as a safe-haven from the constant hail of Reaver rockets, and a number of those BFR pilots (many more than tank drivers) were willing to do just that AND wouldn't crush their own infantry to preserve their precious K/D ratio.

Which makes this whole "BFR GO HOME!" even more stupid. With the resource system slated for PS2, anything like a BFR would be so heavy in resources needed that it would not at all be suitable for massive deployments. Instead it would fill the same role as the Tiger and King Tiger tanks. A vehicle issued to select units (most King Tiger tanks were found in SS units or elite regular units and then rarely as more than a single battalion in an entire regiment or division) as an offensive weapon used to force a break in the enemies line for fast-movers to exploit to drive deep for a blitzkrieg or for a penetrate-and-wheel about attack to strike the enemy from behind, and the shield that protects the area where the enemy is expected to concentrate his efforts or to blunt a penetration then plug the gap. Oh well, I guess these "vets" would rather see more mindless stalemates that turn into tests of who has more time time stay online until one side gets bored and leaves, than a tactical battlefield where cooperation among leaders, careful allocation of assets, and good execution determine a victor. I hope they enjoy the game when they realize that their irrational behavior and baseless fears & hates cause PS2 to meet the same end as PS1.

PS:
It's not that I can't come up with a response to you. It's that I've learned that arguing with idiots who are convinced that their views and only their views have merit is completely pointless so I made extensive use of the ignore feature. After all, why waste time listening to people spew the same baseless opinions as "gospel truth" when I can simply ignore you after I've made my case and spend that time reading things that even if they don't agree with me have at least some indication that it's more than a tantrum.

[Talek Krell]

They're introducing viable infantry AA so that skeeters will change their role, and reavers appear to be bouncing back and forth on becoming two man vehicles to retain some of their current punch. Both lightnings and ATVs are unremarkable, and largely exist to support multi-person vehicles. You are incorrect, there are no cert points. Once trained a skill is available on any class permitted to use it. It doesn't make sense regardless, given that each of these features is teamplay breaking in its own special little way, and certainly constitutes more than a 20% differential between new and old players.

And if you feel as though you're being unfairly forced to work with your team, then this may not be the game for you.

[Sirisian]

They're introducing viable infantry AA so that skeeters will change their role, and reavers appear to be bouncing back and forth on becoming two man vehicles to retain some of their current punch. Both lightnings and ATVs are unremarkable, and largely exist to support multi-person vehicles. You are incorrect, there are no cert points. Once trained a skill is available on any class permitted to use it. It doesn't make sense regardless, given that each of these features is teamplay breaking in its own special little way, and certainly constitutes more than a 20% differential between new and old players.
Nah Reaver is a single person vehicle in PS2. Higby mentioned the change earlier. They're essentially the same role as in PS1.

As for game breaking there could be restrictions on the usage of upgrades in combination. It would help if you listed in what way they're game breaking? The shield I'd imagine would only take a little bit of damage and drain all the energy when used. It grabs energy from the same pool as the jump jets. Also I'm thinking just small jumps like over a wall or onto a tree. Nothing like the BFR jump.


And if you feel as though you're being unfairly forced to work with your team, then this may not be the game for you.
Why do you feel it's not based around teamwork. It would be a fairly weak vehicle. I think many Mossy/Reaver pilots would disagree with you that a single person vehicle can't be part of a team. I could definitely see one of these mechs staying around people for protection.

[kaffis]

OK, don't everyone shit their pants lol. I was assuming part of the new flight mechanics wouldn't allow the hover.

My b.
I'd say it's a fair assumption, to be honest.

The description Smed uses to denigrate the old flight mechanics is "flying camera." In other words, it was just a camera perspective you could move around with a vehicle and guns attached.

Changing that implies, pretty strongly, to me that there will be some aerodynamics (and thus, required forward momentum to maintain lift) involved.

[NivexQ]

You have guts posting that in a place like this. Not because it couldn't be an interesting idea (or give rise to new ideas), but because of the sheer amount of pent-up nerd rage still lingering from the BFRs. What makes it really irritating for me that is that all this BFR-hate is coming from self-declared "elites" who utterly and completely failed at handling the BFR because, despite all of the community managers efforts, they refused to budge one inch from their "fire until it blows up or kill you then bring in the next guy" tactics. It seems as if because they unable or unwilling to adapt away from their previous concepts, they assumed no one else could and therefore the BFR was "unbalanced." Though their antics did provide me with a number of laughs.

I particularly enjoyed watching some of Malnorn's beloved Liberty members throw themselves at a pair of TR two-seat BFRs with AV load outs in a column of Vanguards, only to be completely obliterated because they kept charging in two or three at a time and shooting at different BFRs like knights galloping at a formation of riflemen. Apparently the concept of fanning out to increase the time the BFRs would need to focus both sets of weaponry on a single tank each and concentrating their fire on one BFR to overwhelm it's defenses (a tactic straight of WWII used by American Sherman tanks to counter the Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger tanks superior gun and armor) was beyond them. It was as enjoyable as watching the "elite" outfits of Markov spend a full minute shooting at a parked BFR's body with rifles and heavy assault (most of whom I found out didn't have have AP ammo loaded), then get pissed when the driver came back from their bio break and proceeded to waddle his BFR away with only some damage to the armor and a few items in the trunk destoryed. Apparently the concept of crippling the legs with (again) concentrated fire so it couldn't move away or disabling the shield generator so the vehicles and AV-equipped people outside could add their much heavier firepower to the mix never crossed the empty space that passed for brains among them. In fact I would go so far as to say that that was the ultimate weapon of the BFR; it completely destroyed the "vets" ability to think in anything resembling a rational manner (as shown by this thread) and crippled the more sensible players through making us laugh until we passed out watching the self-declared "elite" repeat the same mistakes over and over then call those who had adapted to a changed situation "noobs" because we didn't agree with them.

I know I had no problem disabling BFRs. I would go as far to say as I found it easier to disable a BFR than any other vehicle short of ANTs, ATVs, or Harassers (and that only due to them being little more than mine bait). With an rifle, yellow ammo, and a little patience I could do enough damage to disable their close-in weapons and cripple their close-range sensors from a distance which made them extremely vulnerable to close-assault. If the terrain was favorable to it, I could improvise an anti-armor ambush with ES-AV or a Deci to target their legs (impairing their mobility) or shield generator (leaving them exposed to attack from vehicles, long-range AV, and other BFRs) then toss a jammer to cover my retreat back into the trees or rocks (the much-maligned fixed surge worked beautifully for that). Even something as simple as running between their legs or behind them and planting a mine or spitfire was incredibly effective at sending them packing for the simplicity of the method. Yet I don't recall seeing one BFR-hate spamming CR4 or CR5 even attempting something that simple even when I suggested it - usually because the response was "fuck off noob, you don't have as many kills as I do".

Yet that was exactly the point of BFRs - instead of being an all-or-nothing prospect like other vehicles, it was possible to drive them off for prolonged periods of time, and to destroy them through the concerted efforts of multiple people. Something that so many "vets" professed to encourage, yet when the need for that sort of cooperation appeared, all they did was become a mob of crying toddlers who spent more time arguing about who hated BFRs more than coming up with counters or even directing battles.

Really the only problem I had with them was how common they were initially, and that wasn't unique to BFRs so I wasn't nearly as upset as they were about it. From the time I started playing until the day I quit Planetside, going outside always resulted in having to dodge the hordes of Reavers and Mosquitos hovering for infantry to spam that were piloted by clones carrying heavy assault, a Decimator, and and having Engineering and Medic certed. If anything the BFRs were a change from that swarm of useless goons; easier to avoid, easier to fight, and much more likely to be piloted by someone who understood the value of preserving equipment instead of getting their crew killed trying to get that one last kill. Not to mention that BFRs worked extremely well with infantry who could use their shields as a safe-haven from the constant hail of Reaver rockets, and a number of those BFR pilots (many more than tank drivers) were willing to do just that AND wouldn't crush their own infantry to preserve their precious K/D ratio.

Which makes this whole "BFR GO HOME!" even more stupid. With the resource system slated for PS2, anything like a BFR would be so heavy in resources needed that it would not at all be suitable for massive deployments. Instead it would fill the same role as the Tiger and King Tiger tanks. A vehicle issued to select units (most King Tiger tanks were found in SS units or elite regular units and then rarely as more than a single battalion in an entire regiment or division) as an offensive weapon used to force a break in the enemies line for fast-movers to exploit to drive deep for a blitzkrieg or for a penetrate-and-wheel about attack to strike the enemy from behind, and the shield that protects the area where the enemy is expected to concentrate his efforts or to blunt a penetration then plug the gap. Oh well, I guess these "vets" would rather see more mindless stalemates that turn into tests of who has more time time stay online until one side gets bored and leaves, than a tactical battlefield where cooperation among leaders, careful allocation of assets, and good execution determine a victor. I hope they enjoy the game when they realize that their irrational behavior and baseless fears & hates cause PS2 to meet the same end as PS1.

PS:
It's not that I can't come up with a response to you. It's that I've learned that arguing with idiots who are convinced that their views and only their views have merit is completely pointless so I made extensive use of the ignore feature. After all, why waste time listening to people spew the same baseless opinions as "gospel truth" when I can simply ignore you after I've made my case and spend that time reading things that even if they don't agree with me have at least some indication that it's more than a tantrum.
:thumbsup:

[Treerat]

Excuse me? Since when is referencing a name a discussion a politics?

Also, you're correct, it isn't thick-skulled when there is no functional purpose. But that statement right there seems thick-skulled in itself. Just because there was no functional purpose for BFRs in Planetside, doesn't mean there couldn't be in Planetside 2. You're just assuming that the game will be identical and there couldn't possibly be any other changes to accommodate that. And on another note, the BFR integration itself didn't kill Planetside; the support thereafter killed it. Once that type of game changing thing is implemented, there is usually a large amount of feedback, and action taken due to said feedback. In Planetside's case, there was no action taken to please the community. THAT killed Planetside.

Maybe the term "thick-skulled" was a bad word. How about... unreceptive?

The vast majority of Planetside players seem to be unreceptive to ideas if even a hint of past failure is lurking within.

I think thick-skulled fits the majority of "vets" perfectly. Along with conservative, hide-bound, dogmatic, blind-as-bats, and a number of other terms applied to those who even if the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary refuse to accept the need to alter their beliefs and outlook to make it fit the reality of situations.

As to the overlapping capabilities and roles. Do you think he is thinking n the the same manner that Heavy Assault rendered Medium Assault pointless for basically all infantry combat? Or that the Mosquito's ability to allow ejection at any time for the same cost as the purpose-built transports sent Delivers, buggies, and Galaxies to the brink of extinction plus made any concept of front line pointless? Should I mention that Lightnings had absolutely no purpose on a battlefield when a pair of MBTs (if not just one) could wipe out a squad of them before retiring for repairs due having almost the same speed, much heavier armor, and a far more deadly gun? Why bring artillery when parking Vanguards on a slope (or just a bit back from a wall and elevating the gun) would achieve the same or greater results for fewer certs, greater availability, and be able to fend off enemy tanks and infantry equally well plus not needing a spotter to squad with the driver. Heck, maybe he's thinking we shouldn't have any any certs beyond Mosquito, Reaver, Heavy Assault, Anti-Vehicle (which would only have the Decimator since it renders ES AV pointless), Advanced Medic, Engineer, and Advanced Hacker since those certs could render all other certs pointless in practice. Oh wait, I hear some voices saying things like "but those are FUN certs!", "I don't want to be a Mossie-dropping surgile!" and "They add options that make it fun to make new characters!".

Personally I think having equipment with overlapping roles is a good thing just from a balance standpoint. It helps keep a fight from becoming a matter of "who has access to the best unit that has only one counter-unit". It also provides a cushion when the inevitable over-nerf to a particular unit causes that unit to vanish from fights so that the unit the over-nerfed unit countered doesn't become too dominate.


Personally I would have made a BFR something a little different. A three-man crew is the base with the driver sitting hit in the middle, a secondary gunner in front and below him in manner used in attack helicopters with the primary gunner behind the pilot with his seat facing away from the others (think the seating of the rebel Speeders in Empire Strikes Back). The pilot would be responsible for overall movement and operate a bank of grenade dischargers (fire multiple grenades over a very short distance) for close-in defense that include jammers and chaff (breaks any active locks), as well as two medium-assault grade AI weapons either in a single ventral turret or individual side turrets mounts depending on body design. The secondary gunner operates weapons equivalent to the two primary mounts on the existing BFRs with the option for adding a communications pack to turn it into a mobile front-line command post. The primary gunner would have the current AV & AI options plus a heavier AA than the secondary gunner. With only 2 versions, the "heavy" version would add a heavy shield that regenerates over time (disabling the generator brings down the shield) and armor just below a MBT, while the "light" version would have some jump capability and a greater top speed at the price of lighter armor and no shielding.

It's specific role? First and foremost it would be a tank that can traverse terrain tracked vehicles can't (rock fields, wide ditches, broken ground, etc) in exchange for a taller profile and a slower top speed. Secondly, it can function as a heavy AA unit or a tank hunter/ killer in those terrains or for more defensive fights where speed isn't as important. It would also be able to serve as a mobile command post able to accompany ground units almost anywhere or as the mobile weapons platform used to break through defenses. With additional weapons options, it could even serve as mobile artillery. The lighter version would also be a decent flanking/ pursuit unit in terrain that would slow or be impassable to regular units thanks to it's ability to jump over common obstructions and higher top speed (in exchange for it's lighter armor and lack of shields). The big restriction on it (beyond normal class & certification requirements) is that each one costs the resources of a full squad of 4-5 upgraded MBTs to produce, and that is before any upgrades of it's own.

How does it not step on other units toes (anymore than other units already do)? Tanks would still retain the advantage of being faster and thus better for open terrain or mobile fights and high-tempo operations. Lighter vehicles would have an even greater advantage of speed and availability, making them better for long-range scouting, flanking, or the hit-and-run tactics that they needed to use to survive even before BFRs. Infantry would, as always, remain the only unit that actually dislodge an enemy entrenched inside a structure, as well as hold the edge within broken terrain - at least no less than they do in a world dominated by flying rocket and machine gun batteries that cost the same one infantry certification. Plus of course the cost mentioned before has to be considered; when you can field 4-5 upgraded tanks (and many more of other units) for each BFR, it makes choosing the BFR a choice with serious consequences. If it is destroyed that is resources that aren't coming back plus 4-5 tanks you won't be upgrading

Of course I'm sure there will be a storm of "BFR LOVER! DIE!" posts after this, all thinly disguised with completely false statements based on observations that were done to support an existing bias and thus highly selective. The irony is that the inevitable BFR-hating posts will ignore one fact. If the legs were replaced with tracks and the named changed to "heavy tank" they would likely have little to no objections. In fact some of the parts I came up with after reading their suggestions for heavy tanks before their ability to be objective and creative was destroyed through their obsessive hate for BFRs. Heck, minus who controls what, it's almost an improved Prowler with legs instead of tracks, especially since PS2 vehicles are hinted to have areas they can be targeted to damage specific components as well.

[Talek Krell]

Nah Reaver is a single person vehicle in PS2. Higby mentioned the change earlier. They're essentially the same role as in PS1.

The definition of "bouncing" in this context, is "changing back and forth". The devs have been quite clear on the fluidity of their design at this point.

Why do you feel it's not based around teamwork. It would be a fairly weak vehicle. I think many Mossy/Reaver pilots would disagree with you that a single person vehicle can't be part of a team. I could definitely see one of these mechs staying around people for protection.

I think we must have fundamentally different understandings of why the BFR failed. The fact that it was (I'm told) hilariously OP at launch merely amplified the underlying issue.
The problem with the BFR is that it's a single player vehicle in a multi player game.
Note that I said player, not person. Lightnings pull back to repair crews to get fixed. The BFR has regenerative health. It doesn't need air support, or armor support, or infantry cover, it can do all of those things on its own. It doesn't need to be transported, or saved from difficult situations, it can autorun. And fly(:bang:). In the jigsaw puzzle of Planetside, it's a piece with 4 flat edges. Sony tried to fix it by nerfing it, but it's broken fundamentally because it's anathema to the idea behind the game. Team based combat on a strategic scale.
Your mechs have that same feel. They're superfluous. They don't fit unless you try to hammer them into the spot currently occupied by infantry and maxes. If they're strong enough to do their jobs, no one with the cert points will bother to use infantry or maxes. If they're nerfed enough not to threaten balance, no one will use them and they'll be wasted development resources.

If the only reason you want these is because "mechs are cool" then my equally well reasoned reply is "not really".

[Sirisian]

I think we must have fundamentally different understandings of why the BFR failed. The fact that it was (I'm told) hilariously OP at launch merely amplified the underlying issue.
The problem with the BFR is that it's a single player vehicle in a multi player game.
Note that I said player, not person. Lightnings pull back to repair crews to get fixed. The BFR has regenerative health. It doesn't need air support, or armor support, or infantry cover, it can do all of those things on its own. It doesn't need to be transported, or saved from difficult situations, it can autorun. And fly(:bang:). In the jigsaw puzzle of Planetside, it's a piece with 4 flat edges. Sony tried to fix it by nerfing it, but it's broken fundamentally because it's anathema to the idea behind the game. Team based combat on a strategic scale.
Why are you talking about BFRs? Read the original post. This thread isn't about BFRs at all. You're confused apparently. Seriously you're way off. Infantry and maxes can go inside where vehicles can't. If we have urban areas and judging from the bases built into walls you're thinking of mechs as some kind of indoor vehicle which it isn't.

Not to mention it sounds like you've never used a BFR. It has regnerative shield actually. The armor isn't regenerative, but that's kind of obvious if you've played the game. My concept just has armor. I randomly said an upgrade could include a momentary shield that would drain the energy bar for momentary protection.

I already said explicity that with my design with just double the armor of a lightning it too would need to pull back and repair when it's components were damaged. In fact it's designed to survive even if its weapons are destroyed. (Shooting a decimator at an arm would destroy it essentially and eat into the total armor bar like normal).

Also with this concept it would need air support. Taking a packet of rockets to it or mosquito fire would literally destroy components or damage them. Their barrage of rockets on the shoulders would only be effective with an AA upgrade of sorts. (Like an ammo type the player could unlock). Not sure if you've used a Reaver from dive bombing and quick attacking a vehicle is ridiculously easy.

Your mechs have that same feel. They're superfluous. They don't fit unless you try to hammer them into the spot currently occupied by infantry and maxes. If they're strong enough to do their jobs, no one with the cert points will bother to use infantry or maxes. If they're nerfed enough not to threaten balance, no one will use them and they'll be wasted development resources.

If the only reason you want these is because "mechs are cool" then my equally well reasoned reply is "not really".
Infantry and maxes can go inside. The game is around 50% indoor and 50% outdoor fighting (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=573685). So yeah not replacing infantry or maxes. Try again. :lol:

[Malorn]

This is amusing to see someone actually defend BFRs not by providing good reason for their existence but by using them as a Darwinistic example of why he is a better player and to rage at those that consistently schooled him.

I would have responded to more of your drivel but its just whining about and harping on "elitists" and doesn't have a meaningful argument anywhere within so I'll just stick to the lies and the denial.


I particularly enjoyed watching some of Malnorn's beloved Liberty members throw themselves at a pair of TR two-seat BFRs with AV load outs in a column of Vanguards, only to be completely obliterated because they kept charging in two or three at a time and shooting at different BFRs like knights galloping at a formation of riflemen.
Please, you may not like me or my outfit, but don't make shit up. We were not incompetent noobs and we were quite quick to adapt to BFRs as much as was possible in that early insanity in late 2004. This little story you describe never happened. When we rolled vanguards we always focus-fired BFRs (and every other vehicle for that matter) for the simple ridiculous reality that a single vanguard's damage could be out-healed by the shield of a BFR. You had to focus fire to kill them and everyone in Liberty who drove and gunned a tank was painfully aware of that fact. We understand the basic and fundamental concept of focus-fire in games and have for about two decades, thanks.

Yet that was exactly the point of BFRs - instead of being an all-or-nothing prospect like other vehicles, it was possible to drive them off for prolonged periods of time, and to destroy them through the concerted efforts of multiple people. Something that so many "vets" professed to encourage, yet when the need for that sort of cooperation appeared, all they did was become a mob of crying toddlers who spent more time arguing about who hated BFRs more than coming up with counters or even directing battles.

Ever think that maybe the reason we all hate BFRs is because they fundamentally changed the gameplay of Planetside in a terrible way for no good reason?

Of course not! Clearly we're all thick-skulled tards that can't figure out how to counter new things! That must be it!

If they had been normal vehicles with normal ground-vehicle behavior they would have just been a role overlap. Instead they were given regenerative shields and jumpjets, two things which fundamentally changed vehicle combat and broke vehicle balance in the game. Really those are the two things that made them terrible. Had they just been 2-seater "heavy tanks" with more armor and no shields so any damage they took was permanent like any other vehicle then they probably would have been fine and we could have weathered the storm.

But no, they introduced giant jumping robots that had massive firepower and absurd survivability that completely ruined the vehicle balance of planetside. GG.

But even had they been properly balanced vehicles they'd still have role overlap with tanks. In PS2 tanks with upgradable weapons seems like a rough equivalent of any role a BFR could provide. Vanguard + AA or AI weaponry, etc. Same idea but implemented in a more balanced way with the vehicle that occupies the same functional role.

And that takes us full circle back to the underlying point that mechs have no functional role in Planetside, which the author of this thread plainly admitted to when he said it was almost 100% because "mechs are cool!"

[CutterJohn]

And that takes us full circle back to the underlying point that mechs have no functional role in Planetside, which the author of this thread plainly admitted to when he said it was almost 100% because "mechs are cool!"

A mech is just a form of locomotion. Nothing else. You may as well be saying that treads have no functional role in planetside, since wheels do everything tracks do.

But tanks are cool. So are mechs. Theres nothing wrong with that. Theres nothing wrong with role overlap either, so long as the different chassis have different strengths and weaknesses. They will each find their own little niche.

[Talek Krell]

You're confused apparently.

One of us certainly is.

[Senyu]

MAX suits are good enough for me for the "mech" feel.

[Sirisian]

I'm not going to say I agree with treerat's long winded posts. BFRs were seriously flawed. This thread is more focused on just creating a regular balanced mech that's fun to use and not a multi-user chore.
MAX suits are good enough for me for the "mech" feel.
The mech feel is swaying back and forth as two mechanized legs move your forward. You really don't get that from a max. A max is just a different armor for a specific purpose to be a very defined weapon system and do it well. It allows players to sit at doors even moving in and out at will.
One of us certainly is.
If you're not going to bother supporting a point then it's fine to admit you were wrong comparing a mech to an infantry unit, but don't be a poor sport.

[Treerat]

Please, you may not like me or my outfit, but don't make shit up. We were not incompetent noobs and we were quite quick to adapt to BFRs as much as was possible in that early insanity in late 2004. This little story you describe never happened. When we rolled vanguards we always focus-fired BFRs (and every other vehicle for that matter) for the simple ridiculous reality that a single vanguard's damage could be out-healed by the shield of a BFR. You had to focus fire to kill them and everyone in Liberty who drove and gunned a tank was painfully aware of that fact. We understand the basic and fundamental concept of focus-fire in games and have for about two decades, thanks.

First, I disliked you and your outfit no more or no less than I did my own. That incident only served to illustrate my point that the underlying problem with BFRs was less a problem of game mechanics and more one of the small & vocal minority who happened to constitute the majority of the forum population not adapting their tactics to the situation. As for that incident itself, you can believe what you want since I can't change what you wish to hear and I was laughing too hard to take screen shots at the time (assuming I had figured out which key took them). However I still have a good laugh remembering how those tanks (if you were leading them or not, or even if it was a Liberty + PUG) kept charging headlong into the worst possible match up for them without regard to using basic tactics. To me, that just confirmed that no matter how well-regarded by a server, how well placed on the scoreboard, and how vocal in it's superiority an individual or unit is, they are still more than capable of throwing anything resembling sense and discipline to the wind given the right incentive.

Oh and your Darwinism comment. What do you think your statements about BFRs are? Just because the small group of highly vocal "vets" (a term you use to describe yourselves that carries an immediate "we are better than you" context) found something imbalanced doesn't mean the majority of players did. I certainly didn't find them so, and had the (mis)fortune to run into a number of others across all the servers who even though they didn't pilot BFRs personally had no problem disabling or destroying them either. Personally, I think you are accusing me of using the same argument that underlay a lot of the "vets" arguments, yet not accepting that maybe your own arguments are equally flawed. Something commonly described as "pot calling the kettle black". At least in my view, I'm little a better because while I disliked a number of things (surgiles, the dominance of HA, endless zergs of aircraft), I didn't let it reach the point where I would damn anything that even carried a hint of those ideas simply out of the need to lash out at them.


Ground-vehicle behavior they would have just been a role overlap. Instead they were given regenerative shields and jumpjets, two things which fundamentally changed vehicle combat and broke vehicle balance in the game. Really those are the two things that made them terrible. Had they just been 2-seater "heavy tanks" with more armor and no shields so any damage they took was permanent like any other vehicle then they probably would have been fine and we could have weathered the storm.

I think you just proved my point. You talk about regenerative shields, but ignored that vehicles operating with the Amp station benefit would also have as shield with some regenerative capability plus carry a great deal more armor for the cost. As for the jump-jets; those were confined to one version (the one with the lightest armor and firepower of the two "advanced" types), and were already a well-established part of the game (seeing as every VS MAX had already used them). If anything I would have thought an NC would have appreciated finally having that same ability to bypass walls with something besides aircraft. Really the only "new" aspects for BFRs was the ability to damage specific parts by targeting specific areas and shields that were selective in which types of weapons they stopped instead of all-or-nothing prospects. Even more interesting, you continue to miss the reason why shields were given (with the attendant graphical work required) instead of extra armor. BFRs had those shields so they would be able to combat their primary targets (vehicles) yet remain highly vulnerable to their primary counter (close-assault by infantry). Instead people like you complained until the shield was lowered (reducing the BFRs ability to fill it's primary vehicle hunter/ killer role) and the armor increased (reducing the effectiveness of the BFRs primary counter). In that way, you only have yourself and others like you to blame for the balance nightmare that BFRs became because it was partially your stream of complaints that resulted in the Achilles heel of the BFR getting extra armor.

You also ignored my point that role overlap already existed in Planetside. As an NC you saw it every day - Sweepers were functionally the same as Jackhammers and filled the exact same role while varying only in details (smaller clip, bit better CoF, and a little less damage) and yet you rarely (if ever) complained about that. Heck, if we extended your argument against BFRs or other "mechs", why have ANY new equipment at all since all the roles are already covered. Even your LMG arguments are hypocritical if you apply your own statement to them; PS2 already shows weapons with capability for suppressive fire in the form of masses rifles so why would be we need something like an LMG when the capability is already filled. Could it because those differences in detail provide strengths and weaknesses that differ from the other units filling that role?

Frankly Malnorn I'm actually surprised in a fashion. I had originally thought you would have grasped the limits and advantages of BFRs and similar units quickly and have incorporated them into your methods even if you personally disliked them. I see now though that you are no different from the members of SG and other "elite" units; once you found something that worked you slammed the door to new ideas and reinforced them with unthinking hate.

[Treerat]

I'm not going to say I agree with treerat's long winded posts. BFRs were seriously flawed. This thread is more focused on just creating a regular balanced mech that's fun to use and not a multi-user chore.

Long winded? Sigh, now I see what is meant by people not wanting to listen to a debate or idea and instead only caring about the 10-second sound bite. Looks like I'm the one picking up the tab at the gangs next outing.

I could have summed it up as "Malnorn, stop being a hypocritical jackass and if you don't like BFRs say so then leave the thread." I however prefer to at least give some of my reasoning behind my positions.

[Malorn]

Amp station shielding isn't in the same ballpark as the BFR regenerative shielding. Like a firecracker to C4.

[Redshift]

I think you just proved my point. You talk about regenerative shields, but ignored that vehicles operating with the Amp station benefit would also have as shield with some regenerative capability plus carry a great deal more armor for the cost.

Amp shields don't regenerate....

[Malorn]

First, I disliked you and your outfit no more or no less than I did my own. That incident only served to illustrate my point that the underlying problem with BFRs was less a problem of game mechanics and more one of the small & vocal minority who happened to constitute the majority of the forum population not adapting their tactics to the situation.

Yes, a "vocal minority" is why 80% of the people (according to the poll in this thread) dislike the idea of mechs.

And that incident did not illustrate anything. For all you know the person you observed was drunk as his computer not really paying attention to the game. He may not have even been Liberty. You saw what you wanted to see and drew broad generalized conclusions without causal evidence nor a significant sample.

As for that incident itself, you can believe what you want since I can't change what you wish to hear and I was laughing too hard to take screen shots at the time (assuming I had figured out which key took them). However I still have a good laugh remembering how those tanks (if you were leading them or not, or even if it was a Liberty + PUG) kept charging headlong into the worst possible match up for them without regard to using basic tactics. To me, that just confirmed that no matter how well-regarded by a server, how well placed on the scoreboard, and how vocal in it's superiority an individual or unit is, they are still more than capable of throwing anything resembling sense and discipline to the wind given the right incentive.
Your implication that we are somehow incompetent and incapable of adapting to gameplay based on your one vague and admittedly imprecise recollection is just slanderous.

Oh and your Darwinism comment. What do you think your statements about BFRs are?

Truths.

You also ignored my point that role overlap already existed in Planetside. As an NC you saw it every day - Sweepers were functionally the same as Jackhammers and filled the exact same role while varying only in details (smaller clip, bit better CoF, and a little less damage) and yet you rarely (if ever) complained about that.
I commented on it from time to time and even mentioned it in my manifesto. I actually prefer the jackhammer to have different barrel types like the scatmax which would enable the user to make range vs dps tradeoffs that would differentiate it from the sweeper as well as make it competitive with the MCG & lasher at longer ranges.

Just because I don't comment on every role overlap doesn't mean I like to see it. The subject of the thread is mechs, not "role overlap in Planetside." I like to stay on topic.

Frankly Malnorn..
Misspelling my name once can be written off as a typo. Now you're just being a disrespectful dick. Your conclusions about me specifically are also incorrect.

[NivexQ]

From the screenshots of Planetside 2 that have come out so far, it seems most people have noticed that there will be a more fluid motion when walking over rocks and other obstacles. Well, this is the exact reason legs work better than tracks. Things with feet have more maneuverability. They can climb over the mountainous, rocky terrain shown in the wintery screenshot. They would be PERFECT for Planetside 2's new engine. THIS is a reason for BFRs to be in Planetside 2. Bear in mind, BFR just means "Battle Frame Robotics". I'm not talking about the current implementation of them, i mean new ones. Possibly four legged mechs that could/would be controlled by 3+ people.

I'll read this thread once more, and if the hate continues i'm just gonna ignore it from then on, because it's getting ridiculous. Stop with all the hate, it's a game.

[Redshift]

From the screenshots of Planetside 2 that have come out so far, it seems most people have noticed that there will be a more fluid motion when walking over rocks and other obstacles. Well, this is the exact reason legs work better than tracks. Things with feet have more maneuverability. They can climb over the mountainous, rocky terrain shown in the wintery screenshot. They would be PERFECT for Planetside 2's new engine. THIS is a reason for BFRs to be in Planetside 2. Bear in mind, BFR just means "Battle Frame Robotics". I'm not talking about the current implementation of them, i mean new ones. Possibly four legged mechs that could/would be controlled by 3+ people.

I'll read this thread once more, and if the hate continues i'm just gonna ignore it from then on, because it's getting ridiculous. Stop with all the hate, it's a game.

Why do we want something that can walk over rocks with no issue? the rocks are there to stop vehicles ..... you know so we can play infantry without being farmed 24/7, the whole game isn't about vehicles

[2coolforu]

Firstly trying to back up your point with 'Survival of the Fittest' is bullshit, so we have a forcing mechanism which you are selecting as BFR's and an existing population - the 'minority' of vets (even though pops were at their highest pre-BFR and crashed due to them). So let's analyze this, due to the BFR's populations dropped and directly afterwards the game was effectively dead until they were nerfed. Seeing as the measure of 'success' of a game could be the number of players the change was almost certainly a detrimental one as it alienated the majority of Planetside's playerbase.

However it also presupposes that you should just deal with any change and not prevent or remove said change, so with this logic we should just 'deal with' climate change, mass extinction events, oil spills etc etc. Because clearly these problems shouldn't be addressed or dealt with, we just need to adapt to living with them otherwise you are just a big whining baby right?

I also love your comparison with vehicle AMP shields, a vehicle shield charges at 5 armor per second pre-nerf crouched BFR shield regeneration was closer to 150-200 APS which can nullify the DPS of multiple infantry with ES AV weapons or the DPS of an MBT. Not only that but vehicle shields were only 20% of a vehicles base health and did not come as standard. A BFR shield had the hit points of a tank and then had its underlying armor which was also around that of an MBT with its recharge rate added on.

But the problem with BFR's did not just stop at their stupendous survivability, they also required only one crewman to be as effective as multiple fully manned MBT's which effectively filled the same role, they could be anti-everything with quick-switching between AA, AI and AV giving quick adaptability to any situation. They could kill aircraft more effectively than a Skyguard yet have the survivability of an MBT and the ability to fly up the the highest camping spots. They could kill tanks better than an MBT yet required only one crewman and could repair themselves. They could kill infantry as effectively as any other vehicle and were less affected by them than any other vehicle, if infantry is being attacked by a Vanguard then one man carrying a jammer will totally neutralize the threat however a BFR could still fire even while jammed and also had the ability to fly away from any fight if it was a flight variant.

Even now after being repeatedly nerfed more than any other vehicle in the game they are still the most prevalent land vehicle out there which goes to say something about how effective they are.

[captainkapautz]

I don't know if anyone brought it up yet, but if it's Mechs people want, then why not play Mechwarrior?

I personally think Bipedal Robots just don't fit in with Planetside, neither with the original nor with it's upcoming successor.

[Sirisian]

I don't know if anyone brought it up yet, but if it's Mechs people want, then why not play Mechwarrior?

I personally think Bipedal Robots just don't fit in with Planetside, neither with the original nor with it's upcoming successor.
Yeah I brought it up already as an example of a mech in the original post. Thus my Battletech comment which is where the mechs in Mechwarrior come from mostly. I'm kind of confused about your comment though. You mean people should go play another game? This thread is more geared towards creating a mech that would fit into the Planetside 2 gameplay. A better argument would be "go play BF 2142 which had a both infantry and vehicles (and a mech) in it in 64 player battles". Mechwarrior's infantry in multiplayer was more of a joke. Not to mention the size difference was huge. Mechwarrior is a totally different game really. The idea is to pull in sweet ideas and vehicles though to make Planetside 2 awesome. I could easily pull someone into the game with just "oh yeah you can fly planes like in BF2, and you can pilot a mech if you want" and they'd be like impressed probably.

Regarding not liking mechs, I understand. Some people find them silly.
Long winded? Sigh, now I see what is meant by people not wanting to listen to a debate or idea and instead only caring about the 10-second sound bite. Looks like I'm the one picking up the tab at the gangs next outing.
Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I read your posts, but you tend to write in a verbose way. Online people don't want to sit and read a huge amount of text. Keeping debate points quick and clear is much more effective.

Why do we want something that can walk over rocks with no issue? the rocks are there to stop vehicles ..... you know so we can play infantry without being farmed 24/7, the whole game isn't about vehicles
They're trying to keep combat 50% indoor and 50% outdoor give or take. However, a great deal of outdoor play is vehicles. I think it would be cool to have some seriously awesome vehicles in the game. If a vehicle isn't awesome I don't think it should be in the game. (Which is very subjective, but I think most people think bipedal mechs are cool).

Bear in mind, BFR just means "Battle Frame Robotics". I'm not talking about the current implementation of them, i mean new ones. Possibly four legged mechs that could/would be controlled by 3+ people.
Odd. You're the second person I've seen that's mentioned a four legged mech with multiple people. Someone in the IRC channel wanted one. Honestly I'm not sure how to make it fun controlling a mech with that many people. You end up with someone not getting kills usually and in the end just end up leaving empty seats that aren't absolutely necessary (like the almost pointlessness of the liberators tail gunner).

[Gwartham]

Mechwarrior was a popular game in the days of yore when PS was launched. I think they were trying to attract the disenchanted MW players with the BFRs. I think Microsoft had announced no more MW games, ever.

Problem is, MW was a simulator that was very well done, where you fought OTHER customizable 'mechs. BFRs were not. Not simulators. Not customizable to any great extent. Not fighting other BFRs (they prefer to pick on softies, and run away shrieking if anything near their weight comes along), and not well done.

BFRs drastically decreased the quality of the game.


Completely OT but is your a Mech fan.

http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/

[opticalshadow]

well first off, max suites are already single user mechs.

but i dont want another version. i dislike single person vehicles because they inhibit teamwork, and promote random people doign un co ordinated things.

that said, im not closed to the idea of even multi person mechs, what made BFR's so bad was that they ignored the arms econmy of the game, and gave orginally far to much power for one or two people compared to every other thing in the game, and then later on, became giant useless targets. their whole design in ps1 was poorly thought out and for them to work would require a major overhaul, scrapping the orginals entirely.

in the end though id rather see a more uniqie vehicle then a mech all together.

[exLupo]

Yes, a "vocal minority" is why 80% of the people (according to the poll in this thread) dislike the idea of mechs.

Forumgoers for any game are always a minority segment of the playerbase as a whole, regardless of how vocal they may be.

Walking tanks, irrespective of name or implementation, are, as was said, a toxic asset. The BFR affair has ruined that mindspace for the vocal minority who will, as history has shown (bad PR items in any game), create multiple threads every day and stink up the forums. It doesn't matter how well the offending asset was done.

SOE cannot afford to voluntarily incite a threadnought when they have so many other exciting avenues they could dump dev cash into. Walking tanks of any kind in PS2 would probably make a ton of new players happy but would be a giant "Fuck You" to the majority of PS1 flag wavers. There's no reason to stir up trouble when you have a thousand other directions to head.

That, imo, comes before any discussion of how well it could be done, what place they would or would not have in PS2* or even what kind of market share you may attract if they're in game.

It's too late at this point for PlanetSide's IP to have a walking tank. There are plenty of other mech games out there, old and new, for people who want that kind of gameplay and art style.

@Sirisian - Multi-leg mechs are boss. I really liked the arty frames in Chromehounds.

*(as I've dumped elsewhere, I think that super-units, regardless of limitation, have no place in this scale of game)

[Malorn]

Well-stated. As you state forum posters are not a random sample of the population. But they are the only sample we have to work with at this time.

[NCLynx]

1 man mechs no matter how strong or weak still takes away from team gameplay IMO.

Personally I think BFRs would have been much better if it was 3 gunners 1 driver. 1 gunner for each gun on the front and then the gunner for the top gun that's there.

[Aractain]

mechs are just vehicles. 1 man mech = lightning. The problem is to get a cool and good feeling mech then have to be big and that means powerful so 1 man powerful mech = dumbass.

So yeah if the proposed "heavy tank" ideas were done BFRs would have worked, instead they did dumbass.

[exLupo]

But they are the only sample we have to work with at this time.

True. Well, that and the cb testers. One of my favorite things to do when I'm in an alpha/beta for a popular game is to lurk on public forums and look at the absolutely ludicrous theory discussions that go one. I'm sure there are some testers lurking on PSU that are having a big ol' laugh at all of us.

[captainkapautz]

[...]Regarding not liking mechs, I understand. Some people find them silly.[...]

It's not that I dislike Mechs, it's just that I don't really like them in PlanetSide.

I dunno it's just that I find them "unrealistic" for a lack of a better term, seeing as most "standard" equipment in PS could be possible with future tech, but definitely not the bipedal robots of doom.

[CutterJohn]

Magic hover tech is far more unrealistic than robots of doom. All thats really limiting legs is the AI to control them. The mechanisms we could create now.

We could make a hovertank, but it'd be the air cushioned variety, which are loud inefficient, and have severe weight limitations. The magical repulsor field is completely fabricated from sci fi.

[opticalshadow]

1 man mechs no matter how strong or weak still takes away from team gameplay IMO.

Personally I think BFRs would have been much better if it was 3 gunners 1 driver. 1 gunner for each gun on the front and then the gunner for the top gun that's there.

a 4 person vehicles would have actually come close to fixing one of the main problems with BFR's, being that it actually took 4 people to have that kind of power not just one or 2. but even with that the balence of the sustain/dmg output as insane on release, sony clearly did not test this properaly and took far far to long to fix it.

[Infektion]

Max's are technically single person mechs, they are an electronically exo suit.

[Sirisian]

mechs are just vehicles. 1 man mech = lightning. The problem is to get a cool and good feeling mech then have to be big and that means powerful so 1 man powerful mech = dumbass.

So yeah if the proposed "heavy tank" ideas were done BFRs would have worked, instead they did dumbass.
I disagree. I don't see why they have to be powerful to be good. The design I described makes them weak while still keeping everything cool about them. Balancing the coolness with ways to defeat them was the whole basis of this thread.

I think that's the problem with most people posting against this. What they want is an uber mech again with multiple people. SOE tried that and it failed. Creating a simple small mech that can be controlled by one person and is easily damaged by other players is a really nice compromise which allows infantry to attack and destroy it from afar. Basically if you get hit with a decimator you know your probably going to lose use of an arm or other component. It forces players to play tactically with hit and run attacks.

Also regarding team gameplay it's not really powerful enough to stand on it's own. It would need to heal and stay next to players to protect itself.

Designing a walking galaxy gunship is just a horrible idea, and it kind of shocks me that after seeing BFRs that you would suggest that. I mean 4 persons? Seriously?

[2coolforu]

A hovertank is FAR more realistic than a mech - large armored mechs will never be introduced to any army ever, not even when we have hovertanks, las-cannons and anti-matter engines and it's a simple matter of surface area to volume ratio's and how visible it is.

For example consider a tank, it has a low profile presenting a small target to the enemy and allowing it to hide and go hull down while presenting a small area for the enemy to strike, it also means that it can point its smallest area (the front of the tank) towards its enemy and have this be the most heavily armored point allowing maximum survivability.

(1) Surface area to volume ratio - A tank is effectively rectangular with a relatively low surface area to volume ratio, this is important as it means a set amount of armor can be a lot thicker on this vehicle than it can be on a mech which has a much higher surface area to volume ratio. as it has low volume high surface area parts like the legs, arms, cockpit etc, you simply couldn't armor all these areas to any useful extent without having a vehicle that sinks into the mud.

(2) Mobility - Legs aren't a particularly great way for a machine to get around, wheels and tracks are better ways to apply force and a gigantic vehicle on legs would apply all its weight into the ground over a very small surface area - it would get bogged down easily and even if it sinks a small amount into the ground the friction would be huge. It's very hard to get to high speeds on legs and if one gets taken out you are in trouble nor will a giant mech be moving very fast at all given power to weight ratios.

(3) Weaponry - A giant mech isn't a great mounting for weaponry, there's a reason tanks have one 120/125 mm cannon not two 90mm cannons. The power of the cannon generally grows exponentially with its bore, its better to have a 120mm cannon that is definitely going to penetrate an enemy armored vehicles front armor than two 90mm's that will have zero effect. A mech would also lack a turret and instead have to mount the weaponry on some mechanism that allowed them to turn similar to what SPG's used in WW2, however the reason we don't use these is because they wear out extremely fast and are pretty inaccurate. Lacking a turret would also mean the mech would have to turn to face targets and would lack any form of gyroscopic stabilization preventing it's ability to fire on the move.

Not only that but a mech is pretty tall which means weaponry near the top would create a huge moment around the feet at the bottom multiplying recoil massively but a tank has a very low center of mass and a small moment around its base making it a very stable firing platform.

(4) Complexity - Just because you can make something incredibly complex doesn't mean that you should, a tank is simple and if something goes wrong you can tell what it is. Not much can go wrong with its tracks or engine and battlefield repairs can be made, however legs would require complex machinery, hydraulics or other complex forms of mechanics to move which makes repairs harder and creates more potential problems.


Basically there are many reasons outside of technological limitations as to why mechs will not be used, the most likely form of mech is a human scale suit for soldiers to wear - nothing more than an exo-skeleton simply because the surface area to volume will matter less at lower sizes and power to weight will be vastly higher meaning a human could lift more. But as battle vehicles they would be laughably useless and would fail against any equally technologically advanced tank at the time.

A hovertank however would be insanely useful, it could cross rivers and boggy terrain and there are mechanisms that could create this. Perhaps the Vanu have knowledge of room-temperature superconduction which would allow them to levitate tanks pretty easily.

[Redshift]

Magic hover tech is far more unrealistic than robots of doom. All thats really limiting legs is the AI to control them. The mechanisms we could create now.


If you could program AI to control legs that work well the you can sure as hell program AI to make the vehicle unmanned.

if it's realism you want we'd all be in bunkers with UAV's shooting eachother :P

[Raldath]

Noobs are like Old People...They complain to everyone who will listen.

I've fallen and can't get up. Someone make me a "I win button".

My new favorite quote.

[Malorn]

A hovertank is FAR more realistic than a mech - large armored mechs will never be introduced to any army ever, not even when we have hovertanks, las-cannons and anti-matter engines and it's a simple matter of surface area to volume ratio's and how visible it is.

For example consider a tank, it has a low profile presenting a small target to the enemy and allowing it to hide and go hull down while presenting a small area for the enemy to strike, it also means that it can point its smallest area (the front of the tank) towards its enemy and have this be the most heavily armored point allowing maximum survivability.

(1) Surface area to volume ratio - A tank is effectively rectangular with a relatively low surface area to volume ratio, this is important as it means a set amount of armor can be a lot thicker on this vehicle than it can be on a mech which has a much higher surface area to volume ratio. as it has low volume high surface area parts like the legs, arms, cockpit etc, you simply couldn't armor all these areas to any useful extent without having a vehicle that sinks into the mud.

(2) Mobility - Legs aren't a particularly great way for a machine to get around, wheels and tracks are better ways to apply force and a gigantic vehicle on legs would apply all its weight into the ground over a very small surface area - it would get bogged down easily and even if it sinks a small amount into the ground the friction would be huge. It's very hard to get to high speeds on legs and if one gets taken out you are in trouble nor will a giant mech be moving very fast at all given power to weight ratios.

(3) Weaponry - A giant mech isn't a great mounting for weaponry, there's a reason tanks have one 120/125 mm cannon not two 90mm cannons. The power of the cannon generally grows exponentially with its bore, its better to have a 120mm cannon that is definitely going to penetrate an enemy armored vehicles front armor than two 90mm's that will have zero effect. A mech would also lack a turret and instead have to mount the weaponry on some mechanism that allowed them to turn similar to what SPG's used in WW2, however the reason we don't use these is because they wear out extremely fast and are pretty inaccurate. Lacking a turret would also mean the mech would have to turn to face targets and would lack any form of gyroscopic stabilization preventing it's ability to fire on the move.

Not only that but a mech is pretty tall which means weaponry near the top would create a huge moment around the feet at the bottom multiplying recoil massively but a tank has a very low center of mass and a small moment around its base making it a very stable firing platform.

(4) Complexity - Just because you can make something incredibly complex doesn't mean that you should, a tank is simple and if something goes wrong you can tell what it is. Not much can go wrong with its tracks or engine and battlefield repairs can be made, however legs would require complex machinery, hydraulics or other complex forms of mechanics to move which makes repairs harder and creates more potential problems.


Basically there are many reasons outside of technological limitations as to why mechs will not be used, the most likely form of mech is a human scale suit for soldiers to wear - nothing more than an exo-skeleton simply because the surface area to volume will matter less at lower sizes and power to weight will be vastly higher meaning a human could lift more. But as battle vehicles they would be laughably useless and would fail against any equally technologically advanced tank at the time.

A hovertank however would be insanely useful, it could cross rivers and boggy terrain and there are mechanisms that could create this. Perhaps the Vanu have knowledge of room-temperature superconduction which would allow them to levitate tanks pretty easily.

Wow, I'm impressed at this. Makes sense. I'd add to it the fact that tanks can shield infantry from enemy fire (the purpose for which they were originally invented). A mech can't really shield anyone from anything.

[CutterJohn]

(1) Surface area to volume ratio - A tank is effectively rectangular with a relatively low surface area to volume ratio, this is important as it means a set amount of armor can be a lot thicker on this vehicle than it can be on a mech which has a much higher surface area to volume ratio. as it has low volume high surface area parts like the legs, arms, cockpit etc, you simply couldn't armor all these areas to any useful extent without having a vehicle that sinks into the mud.

Indeed. They wouldn't replace tanks. They would exist in addition to them, to go places tanks can't. They would have less armor, and would, as you say, want to avoid mud/soft ground like wheeled vehicles.

(2) Mobility - Legs aren't a particularly great way for a machine to get around, wheels and tracks are better ways to apply force and a gigantic vehicle on legs would apply all its weight into the ground over a very small surface area - it would get bogged down easily and even if it sinks a small amount into the ground the friction would be huge. It's very hard to get to high speeds on legs and if one gets taken out you are in trouble nor will a giant mech be moving very fast at all given power to weight ratios.

On smooth flat surfaces, you are correct. There are plenty of obstacles in terrain where the superior maneuverability of a mech would be a significant aid.

(3) Weaponry - A giant mech isn't a great mounting for weaponry, there's a reason tanks have one 120/125 mm cannon not two 90mm cannons. The power of the cannon generally grows exponentially with its bore, its better to have a 120mm cannon that is definitely going to penetrate an enemy armored vehicles front armor than two 90mm's that will have zero effect. A mech would also lack a turret and instead have to mount the weaponry on some mechanism that allowed them to turn similar to what SPG's used in WW2, however the reason we don't use these is because they wear out extremely fast and are pretty inaccurate. Lacking a turret would also mean the mech would have to turn to face targets and would lack any form of gyroscopic stabilization preventing it's ability to fire on the move.

The body could turret like mechwarrior does. And large bore cannon are nice if you can use them, but not the only option. Missiles that can kill tanks are commonly carried by infantry. Also, since their niche is rough terrain, they can expect to not encounter a whole lot of armor. Smaller cannon(like the 30mm on the APCs) would be suitable for anti infantry and air defense work.

If the form is like a standard mech, then the arms would stabilize the weapons if needed.

Not only that but a mech is pretty tall which means weaponry near the top would create a huge moment around the feet at the bottom multiplying recoil massively but a tank has a very low center of mass and a small moment around its base making it a very stable firing platform.

Missiles = no recoil, and its guns are smaller, meant for AA, AI, or light AV work.

(4) Complexity - Just because you can make something incredibly complex doesn't mean that you should, a tank is simple and if something goes wrong you can tell what it is. Not much can go wrong with its tracks or engine and battlefield repairs can be made, however legs would require complex machinery, hydraulics or other complex forms of mechanics to move which makes repairs harder and creates more potential problems.

True enough now. In the future its impossible to say. Many weapons we use today, especially aircraft, but also tanks and APCs, would be considered extremely complex by the standards of 50 years ago.


A mech would not be a tank. Stop comparing it to one. Because of issues with foot loading, it would be a small vehicle, intended for infantry support operations in rough/city environments or scouting work. Its possible armaments would not include large bore tank cannon. It would field missiles, light cannons, and/or gatling guns. Its complexity would be an issue, but being the only vehicle that can keep up with infantry in certain more extreme environments, it could have a modest niche.

If it could swap gun mounts for proper arms, it could also prove an extremely useful tool behind the lines as a general utility vehicle for moving loads, preparing fortifications, clearing debris, etc. Tbh, thats probably where it would start out at.

[Sirisian]

Wow, I'm impressed at this. Makes sense. I'd add to it the fact that tanks can shield infantry from enemy fire (the purpose for which they were originally invented). A mech can't really shield anyone from anything.
I don't think he was arguing against mechs in the game. He was arguing that in the real world they wouldn't work. You'd be hard pressed to resort to bringing realism into a debate about sci-fi vehicles. :lol:

Then again I addressed those concerns by making it weak on its light components and more compact. It's also been addressed that there can only be a 20% max difference so this is a balancing act for all vehicles. The shield could protect friendlies momentarily or if it crouched down, but honestly that would be a huge sacrifice since a few tank shells would severely damage everything. Bullets even would do a lot depending on the component hit.

[Sirisian]

The body could turret like mechwarrior does.
Exactly how I was imagining it.

If it could swap gun mounts for proper arms
Heh. I think your getting ahead of the idea. :p I was never a fan of different arms really. I'd prefer the arms just have guns. If you had them with the ability to repair it sounds over powered and not as specialized.

[Malorn]

I thought it was an interesting tangental discussion. Its not like this idea is actually going anywhere because it still has no purpose and role overlap with maxes and reavers.

[Sirisian]

I thought it was an interesting tangental discussion. Its not like this idea is actually going anywhere because it still has no purpose and role overlap with maxes and reavers.
That's just like your opinion... man. No, but seriously we get you hate the idea. Your the only person who cares about role overlap. The purpose is a maneuverable vehicle... :) Also a reaver is a plane. You're reaching for straws.

[Snow]

I care about role overlap, in fact I've already posted saying that any type of mech would make tanks slightly redundant and vice-versa.

Answer me this, what role does a mech fill that another vehicle cannot?

[Sirisian]

I care about role overlap, in fact I've already posted saying that any type of mech would make tanks slightly redundant and vice-versa.

Answer me this, what role does a mech fill that another vehicle cannot?
Ground based reaver role. Imagine we had canyons with overhangs that made air combat difficult. Unless reavers can still camera fly around they would have troubles in these areas. Not to mention forests, but that obvious. They'd fill a role of a quick attack vehicle similar to the air based reaver. Again that's unless reavers can go anywhere. The new flight mechanics might make that difficult.

[Malorn]

And someone else pointed out that such an environment may be intentionally created as a combat area where infantry is intended to be dominant. Creating such a mech vehicle would be detrimental to that.

Moreover, that would be about the only place such a vehicle was useful and desirable over a reaver. And then MAX may also be overlap for the same purpose.

[2coolforu]

Indeed. They wouldn't replace tanks. They would exist in addition to them, to go places tanks can't. They would have less armor, and would, as you say, want to avoid mud/soft ground like wheeled vehicles.



On smooth flat surfaces, you are correct. There are plenty of obstacles in terrain where the superior maneuverability of a mech would be a significant aid.

Like what? Tracks are relatively all-terrain which is why they are used, effectively the only terrain a tank cannot cross is a jungle. Tracks spread the weight extremely effectively compared to a footpad, a huge amount of the weight is resting in a very small area that would just sink it catastrophically into any muddy terrain.


The body could turret like mechwarrior does. And large bore cannon are nice if you can use them, but not the only option. Missiles that can kill tanks are commonly carried by infantry. Also, since their niche is rough terrain, they can expect to not encounter a whole lot of armor. Smaller cannon(like the 30mm on the APCs) would be suitable for anti infantry and air defense work.

If the form is like a standard mech, then the arms would stabilize the weapons if needed.

There's a reason we still use cannons on tanks and don't just use missiles, missiles are highly expensive, inefficient in the role as a ground weapon. Missiles traverse distances very slowly compared to SABOT rounds which is why only a few MBT's have cannon fired missiles. The only advantage is a slightly increased range, there are also multiple tank defense systems against ATGM's such as SHTORA and TROPHY both of which are battle tested. A missile also affords little versatility as a cannon can be switched to HEAT, FRAG, Canister or APFSDS very quickly and avoid being shackled in a very small role.



Missiles = no recoil, and its guns are smaller, meant for AA, AI, or light AV work.

So it's effectively an IFV then? What makes it any better than an IFV. IFV's apply less force on the ground than a soldier due to their large treads ,they are amphibious, have sidewinders, TOW Missiles, Autocannons, can carry troops, have a low profile, emit low amounts of heat, are astoundingly all-terrain. An IFV has a small profile and a low centre of gravity, how the hell is a mech going to climb a steep slope without tipping over like it's in a comedy?



True enough now. In the future its impossible to say. Many weapons we use today, especially aircraft, but also tanks and APCs, would be considered extremely complex by the standards of 50 years ago.

No it's not impossible to say, our technology may have advanced but we don't have tanks the size of Battleships due to limitations in surface area to volume ratio, power to weight and structural limitations. Anything that improves a mech would improve a tank, why would we make a tank that stood upright and ran on two tiny tracks? Because it would just sink into the ground, it would present a huge target and it would tip over easily.

A mech would not be a tank. Stop comparing it to one. Because of issues with foot loading, it would be a small vehicle, intended for infantry support operations in rough/city environments or scouting work. Its possible armaments would not include large bore tank cannon. It would field missiles, light cannons, and/or gatling guns. Its complexity would be an issue, but being the only vehicle that can keep up with infantry in certain more extreme environments, it could have a modest niche.

Then why are we using these extremely complex and expensive machines, all vehicles can keep up with infantry in any existing condition except perhaps Jungle. Even then we have mechanisms to clear paths for vehicles in jungle and the support for infantry is a helicopter in those conditions which is far more mobile and versatile than a mech would ever be, in a city why would we not use IFV's, APC's or MBT's which both operate in these environments often with infantry screening.

Also you could never equip a vehicle with autocannons, gattling guns and missiles, More =/= Better.

If it could swap gun mounts for proper arms, it could also prove an extremely useful tool behind the lines as a general utility vehicle for moving loads, preparing fortifications, clearing debris, etc. Tbh, thats probably where it would start out at.

This is about the only use for a mech, as a human sized suit to provide engineering or load-lifting support. Even then in a battlefield environment it would probably be useless, this is why we have MBT's modified with cranes, ploughs and load-bearing equipment to do fortification and engineering.

[2coolforu]

I don't think he was arguing against mechs in the game. He was arguing that in the real world they wouldn't work. You'd be hard pressed to resort to bringing realism into a debate about sci-fi vehicles. :lol:

Then again I addressed those concerns by making it weak on its light components and more compact. It's also been addressed that there can only be a 20% max difference so this is a balancing act for all vehicles. The shield could protect friendlies momentarily or if it crouched down, but honestly that would be a huge sacrifice since a few tank shells would severely damage everything. Bullets even would do a lot depending on the component hit.

Why in the game does a bolt-driver have a longer barrel than a cycler, why does a Main-battle tank exist, or an APC exist. Or an air superiority fighter exist. Clearly it takes quite a bit of inspiration from real life, tanks have tracks and a traversable turret, they aren't like armored vehicles from WW1 which had a gun stuck to the front and semi-traversable. Even the Vanguard, Prowler and Magrider despite being very different to modern tanks resemble them in the basics. They have a mostly low profile with a thin profile but a longer depth, they have a turret more or less central with a low height and a main heavy cannon.

I am just using logic, there's no reason why we can't reject an idea simple because it doesn't make any real sense in the physical world. These are the same reasons we don't have an assault rifle that points out at a 90 degree angle or that the vehicles resemble real life counterparts. Everything to some extent obeys logic, it's hardly a 'realism' argument and more of a 'why the hell would you have this' argument.

[PsychoXR-20]

if it's realism you want we'd all be in bunkers with UAV's shooting eachother :P

Maybe we already are O_. Maybe the soldiers we are controlling are just highly advanced robots, and we are all living underground controlling them remotley! WHAT A TWIST!

On a more serious note Sirisian. One of your primary arguments is that mechs could go places normal vehicles can't. Matt has said that they have handcrafted every inch of every continent. If there is an area that vehicles can't get to, wouldn't you figure they intended that area to be inaccessible to vehicles. Having a mech that could traverse that terrain would invalidate all that work.

[opticalshadow]

Maybe we already are O_. Maybe the soldiers we are controlling are just highly advanced robots, and we are all living underground controlling them remotley! WHAT A TWIST!

On a more serious note Sirisian. One of your primary arguments is that mechs could go places normal vehicles can't. Matt has said that they have handcrafted every inch of every continent. If there is an area that vehicles can't get to, wouldn't you figure they intended that area to be inaccessible to vehicles. Having a mech that could traverse that terrain would invalidate all that work.

well as far as already doign that, theres no need in planetside. as the story goes, all three empires are trapped in a war where no one can die. the reason UAV's and other unmanned vehicles were made was to prevent loss of life. in a situation where life cannot be lost, creating a machine to prevent that loss is pointless, and the research is better spent somewhere else.

as for the real life implement of a mech with the thorey it can go places a tank couldnt. the mech is limited even more then the tank. going up or downhill would greatly disable the machines capacity to stay upright, many surfaces (sand, mud, even roads) would buckle/gie way under the very specific area use of a mech "foot" which only one would support the whole thing as it walked. it could if as heavy as a tank, never cross most bridged, most non highway roads, many non solid surfaces (not concreate) it would be slow and a missle or rpg could knock it over mid stride. never mind the fact alls you have to do is hit the leg with an armor peircing bullet or anti armor round, and destroy any one of the many cables, pumps, tubes, jacks that make its movement possible.


as its been stated realisticaly a large mech is mechanicaly obsolete, dispite being more advanced, and a small mech is essetially what a max suite is.

[exLupo]

The "real life" discussion is fairly interesting. In regards to tracks vs legs, we are seeing potential preference to legged vehicles but only as things get smaller. Mostly I'm thinking of the work being done by Boston Dynamics (Big Dog, etc.) as well as assistance frames. Things that need the terrain dexterity that tracks and wheels cannot provide. However, the only time you really need this in any financially viable regularity is in man-sized or smaller environments. The bigger you get, the less spaces you can go and the less you need to deal with funky terrain. The outliers are covered by specialized equipment.

As utterly boss as a giant, 4-6 legged arty mech looks (Chromehounds, you will be missed)...

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_chromehounds-3193-822_0007.jpg

There's just no real world justification for what can be done easily and with more mobility using current design philosophy. That sort of thing may look cool but it won't be able to fire and leave the area fast enough to avoid retaliation.

[CutterJohn]

as its been stated realisticaly a large mech is mechanicaly obsolete, dispite being more advanced, and a small mech is essetially what a max suite is.

MAXs in PS are balanced for indoors use. Outdoors they are one of, if not the most pitiful creature, since they have zero self sufficiency and cannot shoot in run mode(and walk mode is terribly slow).

When I'm talking of a large mech, I think you think I'm speaking of a walking tank like mechwarrior. I'm talking something small. A couple tons at most, that stands like 10 feet tall. Hell, it can even be an exoskeleton, just one primed for outdoors use that can't fit inside buildings so you don't have to gimp it for indoor balance.

[Malorn]

Why is it needed for outdoors use?

[Vancha]

To kill things? Or possibly repair things...

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Sentinel

While I'm in a 40k comparison state of mind, imagining these in PS2 makes my brain happy. Are they bikes? No. Are they tanks? No. They still fit, though.

[exLupo]

Why is it needed for outdoors use?

Why it's useful at all is that exoskeletons maintain relative human range of motion so it's more natural for the user. However, that's where the MAX begins and any further need ends. Human augmentation vs a walking vehicle.

[Redshift]

well as far as already doign that, theres no need in planetside. as the story goes, all three empires are trapped in a war where no one can die. the reason UAV's and other unmanned vehicles were made was to prevent loss of life. in a situation where life cannot be lost, creating a machine to prevent that loss is pointless, and the research is better spent somewhere else.


Yea except the being unable to die thing is fairly new, if you remember the vague story of PS everyone came through a wormhole from a place they could die,
UAV's would seem like a godsend in this war anyway, imagine having 500 automated revers flying at you and still having all the soldiers free for doing other stuff :P

[Entertain Me]

I feel like a mini-mech (like an AT-ST) wouldn't be overlapping with anything. It's purpose would be anti-infantry and light anti-air with high mobility and weak armor, there really isn't an overlap (think Goliath from Starcraft). A tank would utterly destroy a mech, but a tank is much more vulnerable to infantry fire. Therefore, I think a mech would fit well, but that doesn't mean I like the idea of them in general. Probably because they would be too good at their job, and if a tank wasn't there to rescue a group of infantry quick enough, the mech would probably seem OP.

[exLupo]

It's purpose would be anti-infantry and light anti-air with high mobility and weak armor, there really isn't an overlap

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

[CutterJohn]

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

The skyguard overlapped the lightning anyway. Unless you can give a rational explanation you couldn't have fit the skyguard turret on top of the lightning and controlled it in the same manner? The speed and armor of the two vehicles were quite similar.

But then why would there be a lightning anyway? It overlaps the tank. Useless. Toss it. We only need one tank chassis.


There were a ton of vehicles in PS with overlapping roles and physical capabilities.

[Entertain Me]

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

The mech still fits because it offers proper lateral movement, its raised canopy allows it to have a much better angle against infantry while having weaker armor than a lightning. It also doesn't have the speed or power a skyguard has when it comes to anti-air. Therefore, theoretically it does seem to have its own place on the battlefield, or maybe just toss the lightning because it is an odd vehicle to begin with.

[Vancha]

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

In PS2 I imagine the lightning would be slower, less mobile and heavier armed or armoured than a walker, while the skyguard would be faster, less mobile, require a gunner and most definitely be "heavy anti air", if skyguards exist at all (as opposed to a basic buggy with AI/AV/AA attachments).

The overlap argument's getting a tad stretched now. You could just as easily say an AI lightning overlaps an AI buggy which overlaps an AI ATV which overlaps an AI mosquito.

[exLupo]

Unless you can give a rational explanation you couldn't have fit the skyguard turret on top of the lightning and controlled it in the same manner?

Oh hell no. The player run initiative to have interchangeable lightning turrets, with an AA option, was awesome! All I meant was that the statement that an ai/av mech not overlapping anything was incorrect. It overlapped not one but two different vehicles.

Even without the lightning, there's still the MAX headspace to contend with. Take a Vanu light mech. So you've combined a Quasar and Comet and made it bigger. It's still too samey.

Ignoring the absolutely unnecessary PR damage that adding mechs would cause, there's still too much situational overlap. PS1 has tools of every size from man to MAX and vehicles from light to heavy that cover all of the bases that this frame would. The only exception being that this is operating under two ideas.

1) It's able to swap weapon types to cover a variety of situations. This serves only to perpetuate lone wolfing while interfering on other vehicles and impacting mixed-arms scenarios.

2) It's cool. There's so many other good ideas that can go into the game that won't piss off the established players.

---

Function before form. You have to ask: "What purpose would this serve that is not already covered elsewhere?" None. Design decisions based around how cool something is always fail or, at least, have to be completely retooled down the road.

1) Figure out what role needs to be filled.
2) Present a function concept to fill that role.
3) Create unit with appropriate lore and art.

This thread and all of its support is presenting the design in the opposite direction.

[Redshift]

The skyguard overlapped the lightning anyway. Unless you can give a rational explanation you couldn't have fit the skyguard turret on top of the lightning and controlled it in the same manner?.

skyguard needed 2 people....... unless you wanted someone sitting on the lighting roof?

[Entertain Me]

I have given this a little more thought and I'm not sure that I used the same line of thinking as you, exLupo, but I have now come to the conclusion that mechs are bad for Planetside as well. In my mind, a mech-type unit would excel at their job as a highly mobile, lateral-moving, AI/AA vehicle. But because of this, mechs would essentially become a better class of infantry, and, if implemented, would lead to everyone certing and using them. You wouldn't see a regular foot soldier except inside buildings.

[exLupo]

unless you wanted someone sitting on the lighting roof?

I see a <Lightning Ghost Riders> outfit on the horizon. Yes, yes...

[CutterJohn]

Function before form. You have to ask: "What purpose would this serve that is not already covered elsewhere?" None. Design decisions based around how cool something is always fail or, at least, have to be completely retooled down the road.

Why not just have a cool form? Theres no single vehicle in the game that can be sacrificed to make a mech? All are important? Why does every single vehicle from Planetside need to make a triumphant return in the sequel?


skyguard needed 2 people....... unless you wanted someone sitting on the lighting roof?


My point was that realism arguments are kind of silly when the current planetside vehicles don't even act in a realistic way. There is zero reason the skyguard needed 2 people in the established cannon of the game. Lightning existed. It had a driver controlled turret. The technology exists. It would have been no issue to switch to a different gun on the turret.

The game is full of arbitrary decisions. So what if the mech is implausible in real life. Half the weapons of PS, perhaps more, are completely implausible, or work in a way counter to all logical sense.

Some people like mechs. They think they look cool. I agree, they are. I also agree they would not be a major war fighting platform. Don't care.

This thread is nothing more than BFR hate for the sake of it. If the BFR had been just a super large tank, nobody would care. There also wouldn't be a rally against including tanks, since they already existed.

[Snow]

There is a lot of hate for BFRs but that's not why people are disagreeing with your ideas of how mechs could be implemented. People are not agreeing with it because it's flawed, it fits too small a niche to be worth spending time & money developing and it will be a nightmare to balance it.

Don't be so ignorant to assume that just because people disagree with you that it's because they hated BFRs in PS1.

[Vancha]

There is a lot of hate for BFRs but that's not why people are disagreeing with your ideas of how mechs could be implemented. People are not agreeing with it because it's flawed, it fits too small a niche to be worth spending time & money developing and it will be a nightmare to balance it.

Don't be so ignorant to assume that just because people disagree with you that it's because they hated BFRs in PS1.
Can you blame him? Every reason you just stated not to have mechs are null simply for the fact that you could take any ground vehicle in the game and turn it into a mech. The very post you're criticizing included the information that completely invalidated your criticism of the idea.

[Snow]

I guess not but I don't understand why you want mechs so bad.

Yes you could pick a vehicle and sacrifice it by making it's role a mech but other than mechs are cool, why?

More importantly why would SOE want to go near mechs after how much they screwed up so badly last time round?
Why would they risk such a major PR crisis?

[CutterJohn]

I don't understand why you don't want mechs so bad. I'd like em, I think they are cool, but whatever, I can take it or leave it. The insistence that they not exist mystifies me. I get you don't like em, but there will be vehicle designs in ps2 I'm sure to dislike as well.

And it wasn't the fact that they were mechs that caused the imbalance. They could have just as easily been grossly imbalanced large tanks. They screwed up the balance because they were bad at balance. Had nothing to do with the vehicles mesh.

[Snow]

I didn't ask why or how they screwed mechs up, I asked why would they want to risk it again?

[Redshift]

I don't understand why you don't want mechs so bad.

Becuase they're so unrealistic, there's absolutly nothing that a mech could do that couldn't be done better by some other type of vehicle

[WarChimp130]

I think SOE has pretty much just damaged the idea of mech's so badly in their previous incarnation that people don't care what they do with them and that's all their is to it. I know I'm one of them. Maybe it's irrational, but when an expansion comes out that decimates the existing player base like that, nothing any one can say is going to make people feel better about it. People are always going to associate them with the downfall of the first game.

If they want to old player base to come back, the players that made the game what it was in it's prime, then you don't put the thing back in it that drove them off to begin with.

[CutterJohn]

I didn't ask why or how they screwed mechs up, I asked why would they want to risk it again?

Because its another cool vehicle to show off that will entice people to play the game. Theres no risk at all to it, unless you believe that because this vehicle points to to a mech mesh instead of a tank mesh in its setup file it magically alters the stats to be overpowered.

BFRs were mechs.
BFRs were overpowered and had a buggy implementation.

These two facts have absolutely nothing to do with one another(aside from the buggy animations).

Becuase they're so unrealistic, there's absolutly nothing that a mech could do that couldn't be done better by some other type of vehicle

I could name 100 things in PS that are completely unrealistic that are explained away with technobabble or not explained at all. Having had exactly zero mechs in the world tested by the militaries so far, I at least can suspend disbelief enough to imagine a few reasons it could be useful, and that some of the issues are ironed out or made non issues by the technology.

Were they attempting to implement zeppelins, I'd agree its a bad idea. Those have been proven to be crap weapons platforms. Though I'm pretty sure jeeps have been proven to be bad at taking tank hits..

If they want to old player base to come back, the players that made the game what it was in it's prime, then you don't put the thing back in it that drove them off to begin with.

When I hear talk of PS and BFRs, people hate their implementation. Few hate the concept. Some express a preference for the concept of a giant tank over a big robot. Oh, and don't big yourself up. The 'old guard' aren't that special. They were new to the franchise once too. New players can make the game just as special.

[Snow]

Edit: mis-posted (damn tapa-talk!)

[opticalshadow]

. Having had exactly zero mechs in the world tested by the militaries so far, I at least can suspend disbelief enough to imagine a few reasons it could be useful, and that some of the issues are ironed out or made non issues by the technology.
.

not entirely true. many militaries have tried using vehicles that move by legs rather then other means. in each case the vehicles movement system was in each case, slower, more complicated more prone to failure and offered nothing as an advantage. in each case a vehicles with tires or tracks was able to transverse the terrian fast simpler and cheaper. the absolute closest we have comes was a dog looking 4 legged unmaned "drone" which would be used to carry gear or transverse mine fields. it however cost a significant amount, had an insanely co,plicated system of movement, and a single bullet could disable the whole thing

another worry is. if you blow a tanks treds out, they can still fire their gun, if a leg is taken out on a mech (or a single hydralic pump or other means of power) it could topple the mech, making it a nice large exspencive pile.

[WarChimp130]

I think they definitely want the old guard back, especially some of those old outfits that moved to greener pastures. They are going to be the ones that really drive the game in the first few weeks and keep the learning curve low for new players. I know I'm far more interested in playing the game knowing certain old school players will be coming back.

And half the reason those old players will come back is nostalgia, and if you include something that reminds them of Planetside at it's worst and not at it's best, then some of them won't come back.

[Vancha]

I guess not but I don't understand why you want mechs so bad.
I could take them or leave them honestly. I just dislike seeing such terrible arguments used for their exclusion (not yours specifically, just in this thread in general)

Why would they risk such a major PR crisis?
Keep in mind that while the very vocal minority here has daddy issues with father BFR, the vast majority of people playing PS2 probably won't have a clue what a BFR is. They'll think you're trying to reference Doom's BFG or something.

I didn't ask why or how they screwed mechs up, I asked why would they want to risk it again?
You could just as easily ask why they wanted to risk implenting Galaxies, Vanguards or Threshers again. There's nothing that makes mechs any more prone to imbalance than anything else...Especially in such a major redesign.

Becuase they're so unrealistic
:bang:

I'm going to try and put this to rest here.

Auraxis is not Earth, it's another planet...and it's not just any planet. It's a planet with native trees. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that any other planet in the universe has trees? The mere existence of trees on another planet is so unfathomably unlikely that fathoming it would send you instantly insane, because the human brain isn't able to calculate such odds. If you knew half as much about how stupidly unrealistic having trees on Auraxis was as you did about the real-world pros and cons of mechs, both Planetside and it's sequel would become immediately unplayable for someone who has any issue with suspension of disbelief.

Now, not only does Auraxis laughably have trees, but do you know how we arrived there? Through a wormhole. That's right, we arrived through a goddamn wormhole. How utterly, stupidly, ridiculously impossible is that? The mere fact that we could in any way set foot on Auraxis requires a baffling amount of suspension of disbelief. We broke fucking physics to set foot on Auraxis...And did I mention there were trees?

Realism in Planetside is dead and gone. So, so gone. Long gone. GONE gone. It doesn't exist. If you can suspend your disbelief to such absurd lengths that you can play a game where humanity broke physics to arrive at a planet with trees (fucking trees!)...then mechs should be a cakewalk.

[Snow]

Because its another cool vehicle to show off that will entice people to play the game.

I don't believe that the inclusion of a mech over a more traditional vehicle would intice enough people to be worth the development time and cost.

BFRs were mechs.
BFRs were overpowered and had a buggy implementation.

These two facts have absolutely nothing to do with one another(aside from the buggy animations).

You're right but you're expecting too much of the PS1 regulars, my old outfit are all playing WoW and other MMOs now. They're aware that PS2 has been announced and they will drop whatever they're doing and play it when it's launched but to them the inclusion of mechs would be a major put off no matter how well someone implemented them.

I'm not stupid, I know mechs could be done but I still don't see how the pros outweigh the cons.

Oh, and don't big yourself up. The 'old guard' aren't that special. They were new to the franchise once too. New players can make the game just as special.

Again you're right but but your overlooking what a massive impact the original playerbase has over the success of sequels. There is no greater power in marketing then a loyal fan who wants to tell everyone who will listen about the game he loves.

[WarChimp130]

Realism in Planetside is dead and gone. So, so gone. Long gone. GONE gone. It doesn't exist. If you can suspend your disbelief to such absurd lengths that you can play a game where humanity broke physics to arrive at a planet with trees (fucking trees!)...then mechs should be a cakewalk.

Don't forget the Bending. One planet became many planets with a single continent on them...but Oshur was GONE!!!!

[CutterJohn]

I don't believe that the inclusion of a mech over a more traditional vehicle would intice enough people to be worth the development time and cost.

Yeah, a properly dynamic leg animation, so you don't have to choose between feet clipping and and the mech standing at stupid angles, would take extra time and effort.

Thanks for bringing up a fair counterargument. I can quit the thread now. :)

[Redshift]

Auraxis is not Earth, it's another planet...and it's not just any planet. It's a planet with native trees. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that any other planet in the universe has trees?

are you serious? are you a crazy religious nutcase? if life exists on other planets you can bet your arse they'll be something akin to trees

tree's evolved from algae which evolved from goo, any planet with photosynthetic plantlife will evolve some form of large organisms . i.e tree's.

[Sovereign]

I would love to go into detail of all the ways mechs/bfrs ruined the first game but I suspect it would provoke a many 'tldr' response..

So to summarize, the bane they created was an atmosphere of mechwarrior whereby players aspired to be super bad ass mech pilots/warriors because of the prevailing "cool factor" and thus decline on other important duties. Planetside =/= Mechwarrior and never should it try to do so again..

;)

[Vancha]

tree's evolved from algae which evolved from goo
:thumbsup:

any planet with photosynthetic plantlife
:bang:

The unlikelihood of even algae being on other planets aside, I do feel you're somewhat missing the point of my rant. It's like using hitler for a comparison in evilness and replying with "buh, but hitler iz died!?"

[Snow]

So to summarize, the bane they created was an atmosphere of mechwarrior whereby players aspired to be super bad ass mech pilots/warriors because of the prevailing "cool factor" and thus decline on other important duties. Planetside =/= Mechwarrior and never should it try to do so again..

^This.

[opticalshadow]

I could take them or leave them honestly. I just dislike seeing such terrible arguments used for their exclusion (not yours specifically, just in this thread in general)


Keep in mind that while the very vocal minority here has daddy issues with father BFR, the vast majority of people playing PS2 probably won't have a clue what a BFR is. They'll think you're trying to reference Doom's BFG or something.


You could just as easily ask why they wanted to risk implenting Galaxies, Vanguards or Threshers again. There's nothing that makes mechs any more prone to imbalance than anything else...Especially in such a major redesign.


:bang:

I'm going to try and put this to rest here.

Auraxis is not Earth, it's another planet...and it's not just any planet. It's a planet with native trees. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is that any other planet in the universe has trees? The mere existence of trees on another planet is so unfathomably unlikely that fathoming it would send you instantly insane, because the human brain isn't able to calculate such odds. If you knew half as much about how stupidly unrealistic having trees on Auraxis was as you did about the real-world pros and cons of mechs, both Planetside and it's sequel would become immediately unplayable for someone who has any issue with suspension of disbelief.

Now, not only does Auraxis laughably have trees, but do you know how we arrived there? Through a wormhole. That's right, we arrived through a goddamn wormhole. How utterly, stupidly, ridiculously impossible is that? The mere fact that we could in any way set foot on Auraxis requires a baffling amount of suspension of disbelief. We broke fucking physics to set foot on Auraxis...And did I mention there were trees?

Realism in Planetside is dead and gone. So, so gone. Long gone. GONE gone. It doesn't exist. If you can suspend your disbelief to such absurd lengths that you can play a game where humanity broke physics to arrive at a planet with trees (fucking trees!)...then mechs should be a cakewalk.

if you keep up with astrology tyhen you would knwo there are sevral earth like planets we know of all of which contain large landmasses, and oceans, in a solar system set up silimulre enough to our to actually have a possibility at containing life and some which are belived to have plant base life.

aside from alge, planets in our own solor system contain bacteria, if one can be present the idea of another is not so great. while i get your argument planetside is in itself not realistic, theres also a great air of realisim involved. all the vehicles in some form exsist in real life currently. we have hover crafts planes bombers tanks amphibious transports many of the weapons are similure to real life examples, with the exception of possibly vanu weaponry theres not much going for un realisim here. but a mech is not argued to not be used becaus eits unrealistic as in could not happen.

its unrealistic because it offer 0 advantage over other methods of movement. because no military woudl bother building something so insanely exspencive to offer 0 or in the absolute best case scenario a very very minor advantage, especially because the cost of a mech and the fragility of them makes them more akin to porcilin dolls then army equipment.

[Redshift]

The unlikelihood of even algae being on other planets aside, I do feel you're somewhat missing the point of my rant.

It's not the point of your rant it the lack of basic knowledge of evolution thats worrying me, things evolve to best fit their surroundings, given the same conditions you'd expect evolution to follow similar paths, the eye for example has seperatly evolved dozens of times on this planet, and they've all ended up similar.

you would expect evolution on any planet similar to earth to give earth-like results

and as for algae being on another planet, they don't need to be there originally they evolve from goo, goo being a soup of amino acids, as to how you get amino acids there well thats up for debate, but it's also largely irrelevent, if there's life there's amino acids

on a side note wormholes don't break physics

[Vancha]

So to summarize, the bane they created was an atmosphere of mechwarrior whereby players aspired to be super bad ass mech pilots/warriors because of the prevailing "cool factor" and thus decline on other important duties. Planetside =/= Mechwarrior and never should it try to do so again..

;)
^This.
No!

v That.
I don't believe that the inclusion of a mech over a more traditional vehicle would intice enough people to be worth the development time and cost.

You made a good criticism - why support a bad one?

[Snow]

Because the argument being made was that mechs attract people to the game and I agree mechs attract someone who likes mechs but not necessarily someone who likes team based shooters.

[Vancha]

the eye for example has seperatly evolved dozens of times on this planet, and they've all ended up similar.

you would expect evolution on any planet similar to earth to give earth-like results

and as for algae being on another planet, they don't need to be there originally they evolve from goo, goo being a soup of amino acids, as to how you get amino acids there well thats up for debate, but it's also largely irrelevent, if there's life there's amino acids
I wouldn't expect evolution on any other planet, anywhere, because I wouldn't expect life on any other planet, anywhere...and even if I did, surely you can see the difference between a light-sensitive organ evolving and the re-evolution of bugs/fish/plants?

on a side note wormholes don't break physics
Traversing them may well do. When they exist, get back to me.

Edit: Because the argument being made was that mechs attract people to the game and I agree mechs attract someone who likes mechs but not necessarily someone who likes team based shooters.
He was saying people neglected their "duties" (errr..) in their pursuit of being a "cool" mech pilot. You could just as easily aim that criticism towards snipers, infiltrators, MAX users, pilots...

[Snow]

He was saying people neglected their "duties" (errr..) in their pursuit of being a "cool" mech pilot. You could just as easily aim that criticism towards snipers, infiltrators, MAX users, pilots...

As I said I agree with his view that mechs attract someone who likes mechs but not necessarily someone who likes team based shooters.

[Vancha]

As I said I agree with his view that mechs attract someone who likes mechs but not necessarily someone who likes team based shooters.
So again, why not replace the word "mech" with pilot, infiltrator or sniper and use that as a reason not to include them in the game?

Hell, mechs would probably be more conducive to team based combat that infiltrators.

P.s. Red, could you PM any further evolution replies, if there are any? It seems silly to keep bumping this thread with them when it's pretty much done.

P.p.s. You can do post-scripts in forum posts, right? I mean, it's not weird or anything?

[Snow]

So again, why not replace the word "mech" with pilot, infiltrator or sniper and use that as a reason not to include them in the game?

That's true, having snipers, fighter jets and cloakers in the game will always attract the solo player but CutterJohn said that having mechs in the game would entice people and you seem to agree with me that we already have enough classes for solo players without adding another.

[Redshift]

Hell, mechs would probably be more conducive to team based combat that infiltrators.

P.s. Red, could you PM any further evolution replies, if there are any? It seems silly to keep bumping this thread with them when it's pretty much done.


Only when you stop bumping something that's been shot down by 77% majority :P

[Vancha]

you seem to agree with me that we already have enough classes for solo players
No. :lol:

Edit:
Only when you stop bumping something that's been shot down by 77% majority :P
Of less than 1% of PS2s player base.

I only asked because our conversation had nothing to do with the thread any more. :p

[Redshift]

No. :lol:

Edit:

Of less than 1% of PS2s player base.

I only asked because our conversation had nothing to do with the thread any more. :p

you're doing it again :P

[Snow]

Of less than 1% of PS2s player base...

But since this 1% is the only representation of the player base available for comment the developers will have to take our opinions to be that of the overall majority.

Of course you have the official forums as well but I'm sure if you suggested mechs there you would get an even colder reception.

[Sirisian]

I would love to go into detail of all the ways mechs/bfrs ruined the first game but I suspect it would provoke a many 'tldr' response..

So to summarize, the bane they created was an atmosphere of mechwarrior whereby players aspired to be super bad ass mech pilots/warriors because of the prevailing "cool factor" and thus decline on other important duties. Planetside =/= Mechwarrior and never should it try to do so again..

;)
Mechs as in just the idea of a mech ruined the game? Someone already mentioned this discussion seems to be more about the chassis decision and not about the weapons or balancing issues. This is leading me to a conclusion I kind of left out of the first post. So you don't like vehicles or chassis choices that are cool? The idea that a vehicle is cooler than others breaks the game by making favoritism? Ignoring the duties part, since PS has many solo vehicles/classes that work in a team-based environment and shooting down another idea for that reason is absurd, we could just look at what makes all the vehicles/classes in the game "not as cool as a mech".

I'm not sure I 100% agree with that conclusion that a mech is cooler than other vehicles. I find a liberator bomber just as cool as a mech honestly. (I'm an avid liberator/vulture user). I also find sniping and cloaking and just using a punisher cool because the gun is "cool" and complicated in that it has two firing modes. I never liked really using the Reaver or Mossy since I found them boring. Maybe others found them "cool" to use? I'm sure their skill trees might unlock some cool features for them maybe? :confused: Maybe they could have rockets that break into multiple rockets for ranged rocket attacks? There's a lot of "cool" ideas out there to make other vehicles interesting if you find them so much more lame than a mech.


Because the argument being made was that mechs attract people to the game and I agree mechs attract someone who likes mechs but not necessarily someone who likes team based shooters.
He was saying people neglected their "duties" (errr..) in their pursuit of being a "cool" mech pilot. You could just as easily aim that criticism towards snipers, infiltrators, MAX users, pilots...

As I said I agree with his view that mechs attract someone who likes mechs but not necessarily someone who likes team based shooters.
Wow... okay I've read all of the posts until now (phone went dead in Chicago yesterday which stopped me from posting) and I'll kindly ignore the complaints of realism because some people want Planetside 2 to get rid of unrealistic gameplay features. Apparently that's important for a science-fiction game. (It is science-fiction right? Or are we getting rid of the fiction entirely?)

But picking out a chassis design and going "oh no that'll prohibit all forms of teamwork" is going a bit far. There's no possible way that a mech could work with other players? It's impossible to imagine a easily damaged mech staying near players providing assistance? Hell I've seen cloakers not wander away. I bet there were people complaining. "Oh no a cloaker would never revive another player. They'll just wander off and go solo the whole game). Same could be said for a bunch of other vehicles. I noticed someone mentioned the Skyguard in respect to the lightnining as a more team oriented vehicle with two people. It's honestly one of the easiest vehicle to use solo. You just get out on a hill and it's an uber AA turret. (I know because I used to do it to aim into bases). A lot of vehicles can be used in a way they weren't intended. It doesn't make them a horrible anti-teamwork gameplay feature. It's not like a mossy user that's picking off snipers is any less teamwork oriented than other players. In truth they're helping someone not die.

I digress, don't assume a vehicle will hurt teamwork without explaining why it would or how to design one that promotes teamwork and non-solo play. I tried to do that by explaining the easily damaged components that would make them easily get overwhelmed if they ventured off by themselves.

[FIREk]

So... There was this thread about BFRs not too long ago and, now that Hamma closed it, it appears that we're destined to resurrect this one. ;)

I haven't followed this thread when it was made, nor do I really want to go through 11 pages of arguing about whether or not they were OP in PlanetSide 1, so I'll just write down what I think about BFRs for PlanetSide 2.

Here's how you make them work in the new game, without making them OP, or making them any more an "uber solo machine" than a Lightning or MAX unit:
1) make them about two times more hit points/armor than an MBT,
2) forget the silly shields, since they're what made them imbalanced under normal circumstances,
3) give the pilot relatively weak forward-firing weaponry - the equivalent of a Lightning's weapons, or just slap those same weapons onto the mech, with the exact same upgrade options, whatever those may be (in a small 90 or 120-degree turret under the cockpit, for instance),
4) slap on a MBT-like turret with MBT-grade weaponry,
5) keep the mobility identical as in PS1, even with the optional booster/jetpack,
6) now that we know vehicles will have weak points, add some on the legs in general or, if that's possible, weakpoints on the leg joints only would be even better.

The result? We've got mechs, which are bloody awesome, diversify the battlefield and look great on screenshots/videos promoting the game.
People who like mechs will get a machine that trades off mobility for armor.
Its role would most likely be like a siege vehicle.
While these "redesigned" BFRs could take a lot more damage, their sheer bulk and low mobility will make it appropriately easier to deal that damage than, for instance, when shooting a tank at full speed.

Problem solved!

[Tatwi]

So... There was this thread about BFRs not too long ago and, now that Hamma closed it, it appears that we're destined to resurrect this one. ;)

I haven't followed this thread when it was made, nor do I really want to go through 11 pages of arguing about whether or not they were OP in PlanetSide 1, so I'll just write down what I think about BFRs for PlanetSide 2.

Here's how you make them work in the new game, without making them OP, or making them any more an "uber solo machine" than a Lightning or MAX unit:
1) make them about two times more hit points/armor than an MBT,
2) forget the silly shields, since they're what made them imbalanced under normal circumstances,
3) give the pilot relatively weak forward-firing weaponry - the equivalent of a Lightning's weapons, or just slap those same weapons onto the mech, with the exact same upgrade options, whatever those may be (in a small 90 or 120-degree turret under the cockpit, for instance),
4) slap on a MBT-like turret with MBT-grade weaponry,
5) keep the mobility identical as in PS1, even with the optional booster/jetpack,
6) now that we know vehicles will have weak points, add some on the legs in general or, if that's possible, weakpoints on the leg joints only would be even better.

The result? We've got mechs, which are bloody awesome, diversify the battlefield and look great on screenshots/videos promoting the game.
People who like mechs will get a machine that trades off mobility for armor.
Its role would most likely be like a siege vehicle.
While these "redesigned" BFRs could take a lot more damage, their sheer bulk and low mobility will make it appropriately easier to deal that damage than, for instance, when shooting a tank at full speed.

Problem solved!

Works for me.

Said thread was mine. It wasn't about Planetside's robots, it was about Planetside 2 getting alternate versions of tanks that look like robots rather than tanks. They would trade horizontal speed for the ability to "jump and hover", otherwise they would have the same stats and functionality.

It's a good thing that Planetside 2 isn't being entirely designed by the clearly jaded and often narrow-minded Planetside 1 community.

[Malorn]

It's a good thing that Planetside 2 isn't being entirely designed by the clearly jaded and often narrow-minded Planetside 1 community.
Someone doesn't believe the same as you and they're narrow-minded. Clever.

[Graywolves]

I love mechs, I've been a Mech fan since I was born.


And I was trying to think of how I would make a Mech MMO game like Planetside just before July. (Not like I have any resources, manpower, or knowhow in making it.) I loved my ideas though....



That said, I don't think Mechs should be in Planetside, they need to be in their own games where you actually have awesome mech action.

[Tatwi]

Someone doesn't believe the same as you and they're narrow-minded. Clever.

Narrow-minded (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narrow-minded) [nar-oh-mahyn-did]
adjective
1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased.
2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind.

[Mastachief]

Narrow-minded (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narrow-minded) [nar-oh-mahyn-did]
adjective
1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased.
2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind.


I see nothing NEW

Single person Mechs.............. NO. See poll, most of the long term player base have been there seen it and got raped trying to buy the t-shirt.

[Elude]

To me it's either tanks and other light vehicles or just mechs, I really can't connect the two working together without them filling the same roles unless one entire faction was exclusively mechs while the other was not.

What role would a single man mech be? We already have wheeled and tread like vehicles that fill pretty much every role required for vehicular ground combat. On top of that why would anyone want to use a max unit over a one man mech other then to take advantage of indoor fights, I'm also under the assumption that PS2 will have more than half of the playing environment being outside, that's just not fair to max units when you throw something like a one man mech in it's place to be the outside counterpart.

I do however like the idea of being able to upgrade the Max suits to being more friendly to outdoors and against vehicles.

[Mastachief]

What the OP pretty much appears to describe is the current flying biffer but smaller (harder to hit).

[NtrSandman]

Sorry..I had to comment on this post...

if you keep up with astrology tyhen you would knwo there are sevral earth like planets we know of all of which contain large landmasses, and oceans...<snip>

Astrology? I checked my horoscope after I read this and didn't see anything about Earth-like planets in it anywhere...I'll read Gemini's and see if there is anything there...

aside from alge, planets in our own solor system contain bacteria

Strange, I wasn't aware that ALIEN LIFE had been discovered on other planets. I'd really like to see a news article that shows this. Could you be so kind?



And for on topic...I think a small Lightning-equivalent Mech would be ok. I don't see one of those being OP as long as it had the armor/weaponry similar to that of a small one-man tank. Basically a walking Lightning. Not sure if you would run those simultaneously or remove the Lightning from the game so they didn't overlap. I wouldn't be upset if it didn't make it into the game, either way would be fine.

[EASyEightyEight]

I think replacing the lightning with a small one-man mech wouldn't be unbalancing. Slower speed, maybe slightly higher armor value, but the extra height would be both a blessing and curse.

However, I'd rather they just have MAX suits wield huge machineguns/shotguns/what-have-you with their massive hands (think Space Marine or Terran Marine power armors) and not strapped to their arms to satisfy this hunger for Robotech/Gundam fans.

Then again, as I've mentioned before, I can see one-man mechs fitting into space combat without mucking up the rest of the game. Infantry hugging the side of frigates would not only be freakin' stupid, they'd be pretty hard to hit for constantly mobile star fighters and bombers. Mechs here would act as extra large infantry, with weapons (besides rocket launchers) that coincidentally could deal damage to said fighters and bombers.

[Sirisian]

What the OP pretty much appears to describe is the current flying biffer but smaller (harder to hit).
It's a little complicated than that. I was thinking of a customizable mech. Not necessarily flying. I just listed off random options to show that a skill-tree could be made for it much like all the other vehicles in the game.

Also this thread wasn't really about BFRs. I would recommend reading it first, but that might be asking too much. :(

[Mastachief]

I've read the thread................... My point stands its nothing new just a smaller jumpjetting/flying BFR you want to call a Mech.

[Elude]

Assuming we have buggies, atv's, small tanks, medium tanks, artillary tanks, ground transports, where exactly would a mech fit into all this without taking over the role of something else? Not to mention that all of the vehicles mentioned if in the game will also include many upgrades for things like anti air ect, giving more range to their role.

While slightly unrelated this is what I hated about the call of duty games, they had so many weapons filling the same roles that it became a balance nightmare, and anything that was slightly weaker was never used.

If you want to see balance at all in PS2, vehicles need to be entirely separate in role with little to no conflicts with each other. If a mech is anything like a tank then their is no purpose in the tank unless it is slightly better, in which than the mech would serve no purpose if the tank were slightly stronger.

[Talek Krell]

[QUOTE=NtrSandman;587099]Astrology? I checked my horoscope after I read this and didn't see anything about Earth-like planets in it anywhere...I'll read Gemini's and see if there is anything there...[\QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure he meant either astronomy or astrogeology. Probably...

Regardless, they actually have discovered a handful of planets that may be Earthlike.

[Huma]

To put this to rest here is the major issue. Initially when the community actually wanted something like this they requested it to be outfit oriented. We wanted a large vehicle that required a lot of people to run it and that could be used to break siege fights. Instead what we got was an incredibly powerful 1 or 2 seated vehicle that was WAY overpowered.
I am completely and totally against BFRs in their current incarnation. Here is why:

1- Shielding: No vehicle should have the level of shielding that a BFR has. I understand
that it is supposed to have staying power but it's ridiculous.

2- Weaponry: Having AI and AA weaponry leads to solo farming and retards the use of
more appropriate vehicles.

3- Team Play: BFRs encourage solo play even in the gunner variant. Largely this is due
to people not using them correctly.

In order to make BFRs sellable they'll need to address these issues and rename them. Personally I would say increase the crew requirement, drop the shield for more armor, and keep to just AV weaponry.

[Elude]

I would rather take a leviathan from UT2004/UT3 that can fly over a mech with multiple seats lol.

[Sirisian]

1- Shielding: No vehicle should have the level of shielding that a BFR has. I understand that it is supposed to have staying power but it's ridiculous.
In the original post I said one customization might be a momentary shield such as the one found in BF2142. That is it's use would be to block a few rockets from a Reaver or a tank blast if you saw the rockets or shells coming at you and wanted to protect your components. The shield I presented as a skill upgrade wasn't meant to make them invulnerable. It's cool down as explained in the original post is trade-off between it and any flying customization (which I described as a small boost to get onto walls or over rocks. Not to fly like the flying variant).

2- Weaponry: Having AI and AA weaponry leads to solo farming and retards the use of more appropriate vehicles.
Part of me agrees that's why I said they should have so many weak points in the component based system. I like the customization however since it opens choices. I said previously though I don't support having different weapons on each arm. Basically a tank that took a direct shot at it would destroy damage components and force a retreat after a few hits. They'd hold their own against fast moving vehicles and where they can hide behind trees and rocks and other terrain features.

3- Team Play: BFRs encourage solo play even in the gunner variant. Largely this is due to people not using them correctly.
I 100% agree. The concept would be to keep them around players and other vehicles. If anyone gets the jump on them they'll lose components. (Shooting a decimator at an armor or shoulder would severely damage/destroy that component).

Personally I would say increase the crew requirement, drop the shield for more armor, and keep to just AV weaponry.
I'm not a fan of those. They end up just becoming too powerful instead of promoting teamwork. Pushing forward should be left to tanks and ground transport type stuff probably.

[Talek Krell]

Initially when the community actually wanted something like this they requested it to be outfit oriented. We wanted a large vehicle that required a lot of people to run it and that could be used to break siege fights.

What about a big overhaul of the bangbus to a proper gatecrasher? Seems like it's much closer to the concept.

[Huma]

What about a big overhaul of the bangbus to a proper gatecrasher? Seems like it's much closer to the concept.

Yeah true but that's way after BFRs. We're talking about those here :p :)

[Talek Krell]

If you want them you need a role for them. Preferably that isn't already occupied. Which is essentially going about it the wrong way, a vehicle should be crafted to fit a role, not crafted and then crammed into it.

[Huma]

True true, personally I think it would fill the role of a heavy battle tank well. Just a matter of adjusting it accordingly.

[Talek Krell]

I'm kind of fond of the tanks we have now. Is there something we need heavier ones for?

[zuesrocks]

no

[EASyEightyEight]

Mechs could have their place later in the game's life without feeling shoehorned in. Right now all a mech would serve to do is to be a walking tank. Planetside 2 doesn't need 2 different medium tanks.

And honestly: making them multi-manned feels forced. We know space combat is a direction SOE wants to go, and I do like the idea of giant robots acting as infantry in space. Outside of a station of course.

[Talek Krell]

That's actually one of the few places where a mech makes some sense. Infantry aren't very well suited to space combat away from stations or ships, so having an infantry like vehicle to fulfill their roles seems feasible.

[Huma]

I'm kind of fond of the tanks we have now. Is there something we need heavier ones for?

Currently not really. But if you consider the shear volume of fire a vehicle is going to have to work through on some fights. Remember it's not going to be a handful of reavers, tanks, and av grunts. It's going to be hundreds. So having a heavier tank that you can use to break an enemy line is going to be important.

[Thumpa]

I threw together a quick sketch of how a multi-man mech would operate.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_kSiRp71MQB8/SAQALPPLrMI/AAAAAAAAAMw/yDocFnAvoJc/s400/ninjamegazord-cockpit.jpg

[zuesrocks]

the op is talking about bfs its clear,its been confirmed that there will Never be bfs in planetside 2 ever

[Sirisian]

Yeah true but that's way after BFRs. We're talking about those here :p :)
That wasn't the original point of this thread. The original point was a small balanced agile vehicle to fight along-side tanks and infantry. When people associate BFR with the mech idea I proposed it conjures up ideas of a super mech and not the one I described.

Mechs could have their place later in the game's life without feeling shoehorned in. Right now all a mech would serve to do is to be a walking tank. Planetside 2 doesn't need 2 different medium tanks.
It's not a medium tank. Their weapons and roles would be very different. The lightning has speed in a linear direction and a fast firing cannon the mech I proposed would be more of a medium range attacker that would be pushed back by say a tank shooting from afar. (My other thread explains how I'd prefer tanks function (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37145)).

I threw together a quick sketch of how a multi-man mech would operate.
That's exactly what I imagine. A lot of useless roles. I'm glad someone else see what I mean. (To be fair I go a bit further. I linked to my other thread which removes that monotony of multi-manned vehicles and replaces it with action for all participants).

[Graywolves]

I threw together a quick sketch of how a multi-man mech would operate.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_kSiRp71MQB8/SAQALPPLrMI/AAAAAAAAAMw/yDocFnAvoJc/s400/ninjamegazord-cockpit.jpg

I approve.

[Talek Krell]

Currently not really. But if you consider the shear volume of fire a vehicle is going to have to work through on some fights. Remember it's not going to be a handful of reavers, tanks, and av grunts. It's going to be hundreds. So having a heavier tank that you can use to break an enemy line is going to be important.

If you're not going to balance them to do their own job, what would be the point of the existing tanks?

That wasn't the original point of this thread.

Your thread died almost a month ago. It was resurrected because Tatwi's got locked. No one cares what the original point was.

I threw together a quick sketch of how a multi-man mech would operate.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_kSiRp71MQB8/SAQALPPLrMI/AAAAAAAAAMw/yDocFnAvoJc/s400/ninjamegazord-cockpit.jpg

Epic.

[Sirisian]

Your thread died almost a month ago. It was resurrected because Tatwi's got locked. No one cares what the original point was.
It was locked because no one really cared for BFRs. The point of this thread isn't about BFRs. If you had read that and not bumped it indiscriminately you would have realized that. ;)

The original point of this thread was addressing the problems with a BFR while still keeping the fun that the idea of a mech chassis could be used for without bringing up the flawed designs of a multi-manned vehicle.

The whole concept is drastically different from the usage of a tank that comparing the two is kind of pointless. It's like comparing a Reaver to a tank essentially which was an example use previously to differentiate what this mech would function like. (Ground based Reaver).

[Mastachief]

It was locked because no one really cared for BFRs. The point of this thread isn't about BFRs. If you had read that and not bumped it indiscriminately you would have realized that. ;)

The original point of this thread was addressing the problems with a BFR while still keeping the fun that the idea of a mech chassis could be used for without bringing up the flawed designs of a multi-manned vehicle.

The whole concept is drastically different from the usage of a tank that comparing the two is kind of pointless. It's like comparing a Reaver to a tank essentially which was an example use previously to differentiate what this mech would function like. (Ground based Reaver).

What utter crap, you have proposed a BFR. You want to call it a mech but this isn't mech warrior its planetside.

[Sirisian]

What utter crap, you have proposed a BFR. You want to call it a mech but this isn't mech warrior its planetside.
Planetside, the science-fiction game. Oddly enough the mech chassis has existed in a lot of sci-fi games not just the mech warrior series. That's just what most people remember them from. BF2142 had one.

I don't really see how I proposed a BFR. A BFR had a nearly invulnerable shield, tons of armor, and the ability to fly with the flying variant. I proposed a medium sized one person vehicle that could be customized with the ability to use a momentary shield or small jump jets. It wouldn't require close ranged attacks and would be damaged from AV weapons allowing a skilled AV user to disable components from afar.

I completely understand not liking the mech chassis though. It's kind of a hit or miss with most people. Having a customizable lightning seems a lot more appealing it seems from the idea thread on that topic.

[Accuser]

Lightnings are right where they need to be for one person vehicles. But they are also VERY difficult to both control and fire from (usually when my MBT rolls up to one, it will shoot at us while driving headlong into a tree). That said, anything functioning as an easy-to-drive, easy-to-shoot MAX vehicle should have LESS armor/weaponry than a Lightning. Otherwise, why would I bother trying to coordinate my gunning with a driver when I can just pull my personal "go where I like, shoot what I want" SuperMAX? And why would the driver of a MBT, with limited or no firepower at his fingertips, rely on a gunner to get BEP for him when he can pull his SuperMAX?

Personally, I like the aesthetic of the tank better than the mech chassis for a 2-man vehicle anyway. However, I'd be ALL for implementing a higher-cert Heavy Battle Tank design that has superior stats to the MBT.

[Sirisian]

That said, anything functioning as an easy-to-drive, easy-to-shoot MAX vehicle should have LESS armor/weaponry than a Lightning.
That part I covered with the component based damage when I said it would have twice the amount of armor as a lightning. The idea being it would be easy to immobilize part but hard to keep from retreating. Basically to stop it would take 5 rounds from a tank but to offset the slow moving it would have armor that allowed it to retreat.

Otherwise, why would I bother trying to coordinate my gunning with a driver when I can just pull my personal "go where I like, shoot what I want" SuperMAX? And why would the driver of a MBT, with limited or no firepower at his fingertips, rely on a gunner to get BEP for him when he can pull his SuperMAX?
Range. A MBT would within a few shots eat into the components. Could 2 of them working together try to take on a tank? A vanguard took something like 5 shots to kill a lightning. At that point on the proposed mech it would have damaged weapons and be retreating for repairs. Unless they were in the forest and got the jump maybe on a tank. They'd be medium range fighters ideally.

Regarding the role overlap that was explained before. Different AV weapons and the MAX has the advantage of going indoors and fighting other MAX units.
Personally, I like the aesthetic of the tank better than the mech chassis for a 2-man vehicle anyway. However, I'd be ALL for implementing a higher-cert Heavy Battle Tank design that has superior stats to the MBT.
Yeah I prefer the tank being the only heavy hitting AV vehicle. Watching one role into the battle fighting other MBTs is nice.

[Tycho]

Your idea of a "Mech" in Planetside is not going to gain traction with the current player population. It conjures to many bad memories of BFR's when they were first released which was a contributing factor to the decline of the game. We will be better off waiting to see what the cert tree will look like with MAXes in PS2. Its possible this will satisfy your "Mech" need.

I would like to see a Heavy Tank which is what we asked for years ago in 2004. I personally dont like BFRs and am very happy that they will not make a return in PS2.

[zuesrocks]

Your idea of a "Mech" in Planetside is not going to gain traction with the current player population. It conjures to many bad memories of BFR's when they were first released which was a contributing factor to the decline of the game. We will be better off waiting to see what the cert tree will look like with MAXes in PS2. Its possible this will satisfy your "Mech" need.

I would like to see a Heavy Tank which is what we asked for years ago in 2004. I personally dont like BFRs and am very happy that they will not make a return in PS2.


agreeded,doesnt matter how you put it op you want bfs in ps2,and it wont happen ever,its been confirmed,and im glade bfs will never be in ps2

[Kouza]

Good luck with this. lol

[MasterChief096]

The poll speaks for itself. The current people on this board and the ones keeping up with PlanetSide 2 news do not want BFRs, mechs, or any alteration of those two terms.

Now that might change when PlanetSide 2 launches and the number of PS2 players exceeds the number of PlanetSide 1 veterans that came back for PS2. But I still highly doubt there are going to be mechs.

[Geist]

Not gonna read through 14 pages of responses, so sorry if this has been posted before, but what if they just replaced the Lightning with this bipedal mech? Same armor, more customizability, and better handling(The lightning was horrible to drive), it would make an excellent solo vehicles.

Another possibility is that is just an outdoor MAX and can be one of the skills on the MAX skill tree.

[Captain B]

I thought BFRs were cool as an idea, but they should not have been able to jump and fly and all that crap, and they were WAY too powerful. If they were slightly stronger than a tank and had a lot of damage output, as well as couldn't jump and fly and crap, sure. I mean, why not? They're huge and will soak up tons of damage quick. But all them missiles and rockets and arty just didn't do anything before they said "We done, bai," and left to repair.

[Sirisian]

Hello mech thread. We meet again.

Not gonna read through 14 pages of responses
I'd recommend it. Most points have been brought up. The original post sums up a lot of my views which I've expanded upon in other posts. However, it's important to keep in mind that a lot of people haven't read the original post so they're not really sure what this idea was about.

Case in point:
I thought BFRs were cool as an idea, but they should not have been able to jump and fly and all that crap, and they were WAY too powerful. If they were slightly stronger than a tank and had a lot of damage output, as well as couldn't jump and fly and crap, sure. I mean, why not? They're huge and will soak up tons of damage quick. But all them missiles and rockets and arty just didn't do anything before they said "We done, bai," and left to repair.
The flaws of the BFR were already expanded upon in earlier posts. The original post focuses on creating a design that's balanced. They don't need to be stronger than a tank, nor have equal fire power to be useful. They just need to focus on maneuverability.

I've went into depth into this in many threads. If a tank fires a round at a mech it can at a certain range strafe to dodge the round. Same idea between dumb-fire AV rounds from range. The idea being that if you do hit one its components it's going to take be a critical disadvantage increasing the skill of AV users and pilots.

I digress. If you're fix for the BFRs is to make them have more armor and damage output than a tank you're going the wrong direction.

[Xyntech]

I digress. If you're fix for the BFRs is to make them have more armor and damage output than a tank you're going the wrong direction.

This makes a lot of sense. It works in Mech Warrior, but only because that's a game all about giant mechs fighting other giant mechs.

It doesn't even make sense if you think about it. Why would a mech with a ton of moving parts and a lot of exposed surface area have more armor than a turtle shell of a tank?

Maneuverability is where it's at. Out door MAX suits is the way to go if they do this.

Higby has mentioned an interest in revisiting the BFR idea from a better angle, hopefully this is the direction they go in if they do it.

I don't think a bigger MAX suit would ruin the game if it were properly implemented. Just don't call it a BFR, too much bad stigma.

[Jimmuc]

whats the opinion on walker vehicles? something akin to an AT-ST or Sentinel (SW and WH40K respectively)

[Graywolves]

I want an AT-ST or a Speederbike


Mostly speederbike

[NapalmEnima]

Upright walkers are simply inferior to tanks.

For a given volume, they're taller, have more surface area, and must use a great deal of that volume for articulation that isn't present in a tank.

Given the same level of technology, tanks will win every time.

The reason it works in anime is all the Uber Tech is in the mechs, while the tanks are left in the dark ages.

Give a tank the same power plant, armor type, weaponry, and thrusters, and you end up with a Much More Dangerous vehicle. At least as maneuverable, durable, and well armed... and with more space/weight to devote to such things not taken up by all the articulation? More weapons, more armor, and/or more maneuverability.

Articulation can be genuinely useful in one particular setting. You can change your lift/drag. You can change how much space you need to be stored in. Tomcats have mobile wings for a reason. Carrier planes have had wings that can fold up for storage since WWII. The V22-Osprey won its contract for a reason.

Okay, now advance into the future a century or five, and make force fields a Real Thing. Now to change your flight characteristics, all you need to do is reshape your force field.

Check out this article on ion wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_wind). We can push air around now with nothing but electricity, albeit in limited ways. Tack on a couple hundred years of technological progress and its quite reasonable to think that you'd be able to drastically alter the flight characteristics of just about anything without physically altering its shape.

Really big mechs are dumb.

MAX-size "mechs" are great. It's a big pile of extra armor, weaponry, and beans-n-bullets wrapped around an infantryman, with the ability to go just about anywhere a person can go, and often to places they cannot at speeds they cannot (thrusters/wheels). They can bring air into a vacuum or under water. They can protect the wearer from deadly environments.

Oh, tunnel crawls where you literally have to crawl might not be such a hot idea, but just about anything else? MAXes can be great. DARPA has a number (http://www.switched.com/2010/09/28/real-world-iron-man-xos-2-suit-demonstrated-by-iron-man-acto/) of contracts (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/hulc/) floating around now to do precisely that. They might not bear fruit for a decade or two, but the seeds are in the ground.

Actually the HULC project is pretty close to something that could be used in the field. Letting someone carry 80 lbs on their back without noticeable effort isn't all that far from "let someone carry an EXTRA 80 lbs of weapons, armor, beans, and bullets".

For reference, a SAW w/1000 rounds of ammo weighs roughly 50 lbs. The latest military body armor, the "Modular Tactical Vest" + "Lightweight Helmet" is just over 36 pounds.

Wow... getting far afield here.


Anyway: Big Walking Tanks < Real Tanks.

[xSlideShow]

I want Transformers. Tanks that turn into mechs. Make it happen?

[MasterChief096]

I could see a walker suit for infantry that is like the one's from Avatar, and their only real niche on the battlefield would be to provide some heavier armor in mountainous/canyon regions where only infantry/aircraft are going to be fighting anyway.

SMALL mechs, like maybe only slightly larger than a MAX suit, will probably be what we see, if any at all, since the term mech, BFR, walker, what-have-you all have negative connotations around here.

[Mirror]

The poll is kinda one sided.

Do we have a bin or some sort of shredder for this thread?

[Sirisian]

Upright walkers are simply inferior to tanks.Exactly. A tank shell AV round would rip through the delicate components of a mech that give it its maneuverability.

Really big mechs are dumb.
100% agree. The scale I described in my original post was twice the size of a soldier. For references that's:
http://sirisian.com/pictures/madcat.png

I want Transformers. Tanks that turn into mechs. Make it happen?
Sony has another game called Starhawk where a mech turns into a plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slj72nz5uK4#t=48s). I actually agree that those kinds of things would be cool to see, however the animation budget for such "cool" ideas probably isn't there. Maybe later.

The poll is kinda one sided.
Not sure what you expected. Most people haven't even read the first post. They just assumed this was a BFR thread. As I mentioned a while back the poll is basically worthless at this point especially after Hamma erroneously started merging BFR threads into my thread.

[SgtMAD]

The poll is kinda one sided.

Do we have a bin or some sort of shredder for this thread?

AMEN

[Mastachief]

Not sure what you expected. Most people haven't even read the first post. They just assumed this was a BFR thread. As I mentioned a while back the poll is basically worthless at this point especially after Hamma erroneously started merging BFR threads into my thread.

What crap you just decided that this is the case because you are a mech fanboy. Mechs and tanks should never be in the same game.

[Sirisian]

What crap you just decided that this is the case because you are a mech fanboy.
"Fanboy" would be going a bit far. I only liked the Mechwarrior and Armored Core series. Most of the Mech chasis in Armored Core were dumb. Same reason I don't like gundum or any of the mech Anime. Humanoid Mechs like the Vanu BFR to me are lame. Chicken leg Mechs are pretty much the only ones I like.

Mechs and tanks should never be in the same game.
Probably because you associate a Mech as being an alternative to a Tank. If you read the first post (thus my previous comment you scoffed at), you'll notice I proposed using the bipedal chassis for a vehicle that is completely different than the role a tank chassis would fulfill.

[Mastachief]

But it doesn't, you are proposing what would effectively be a light tank that walks. Can we not just let this thread die the poll speaks for its self mechs are not wanted in planetside in any form by the mass majority.

[Malorn]

This thread and the terrible idea that spawned it needs to die a horrible death.

[Sirisian]

But it doesn't, you are proposing what would effectively be a light tank that walks.
I never really went into an AV focus or said it would have AV cannons. That was open for discussion.

Having armor piercing machine guns on the arms then AV/AA rockets with limited ammo was actually my ideal mech setup. So no not really a light tank at all. What were you imagining? I'm genuinely curious how others view mechs and why the idea is so unappealing.

[Wahooo]

This thread and the terrible idea that spawned it needs to die a horrible death.

No read Siriasian's sig it is one of the "Best Planetside 2 Ideas" that most of the planetside players here are overwhelmingly opposed to.

Simple point that I tried to make in one of the "BUT THEY AREN"T BFRS!!!11!!" threads over on the offical PS forums a while ago.

If you look through the comments of random postings about PS, which there is a growing amount with PS2 now, or all kinds of really old and most viewed planetside vids on Youtube there are soooo many quotes by people that say something along the lines of "Wow I remember that game! One of my most favorites ever played from release until BFRs!" If you compare statements like this found all over the interwebs it would seem at least 1/2 the people to have ever quit the game did so because of BFRs, or at least in their memory if it wasn't the direct reason it SYMBOLIZES to them what went wrong with the game.
For most of those people and everyone else who currently plays and may simply dislike but overlook current BFRs making something that hints at, smells like or in anyway begins to resemble a BFR, which your mechs do, would be looked at as a direct slap in the face and a big steam pile of admitted fail by the dev team.

Simply if it looks anything like a BFR, it makes people think of everything that has ever been bad about Planetside. Like it or not, rational, fair or otherwise that is simply the case.

So let it go.

[Captain B]

I could see a walker suit for infantry that is like the one's from Avatar, and their only real niche on the battlefield would be to provide some heavier armor in mountainous/canyon regions where only infantry/aircraft are going to be fighting anyway.

I totally thought about that last night. I'd personally like to see BFR-sized vehicles again, maybe with directional shields or something (something that has to be upgraded and such to mitigate damage), but nothing like they were. I think the high jumps and flying crap was stupid, but I didn't mind their aesthetic or what they COULD have been in the game.

[Captain B]

or at least in their memory if it wasn't the direct reason it SYMBOLIZES to them what went wrong with the game.
For most of those people and everyone else who currently plays and may simply dislike but overlook current BFRs making something that hints at, smells like or in anyway begins to resemble a BFR, which your mechs do, would be looked at as a direct slap in the face and a big steam pile of admitted fail by the dev team.

This is a common aspect of all games. For those who played UO, most people hear "Trammel" and freak out, when the world became consensual PvP only. They hear "Renaissance" ruleset and remember Trammel and it's "OMG SO GAY CAREBEAR FUCKS."

The reality is Renaissance was a vastly superior gameplay upgrade to the normal game, and incorporated a lot of cool stuff. In fact, the only thing that sucked about it was the loss of non-consent PvP and Felucca. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a UO vet that can take a deep breath, review the facts, and admit to this without flipping out and stabbing someone in the neck.

Just because it's similar or had a quality that made them suck, doesn't mean the entire idea of it sucks. Like sandbox-style, non-consent PvP (PKing, stealing, etc.). Those style MMOs don't really exist anymore; if they do, they tend to blow and either fail or have some pretty shitty numbers. It isn't because non-consent PvP is inherently bad, but punishing murderers and thieves for forcing their will on players and then getting caught or killed isn't any different than dying as a good guy. There's no incentive to be good, nor is there any real fear of consequence in being evil.

It's one quality, one aspect that ruins the whole name or concept or idea, but sadly that's the case with a lot of things in life.

[NapalmEnima]

I totally thought about that last night. I'd personally like to see BFR-sized vehicles again, maybe with directional shields or something (something that has to be upgraded and such to mitigate damage), but nothing like they were. I think the high jumps and flying crap was stupid, but I didn't mind their aesthetic or what they COULD have been in the game.

Meh. Put all the effort into designing Big, Sensible 5+ seat vehicles. I want to crew a B17 Flying Fortress that has been Planetside-ificationized. 8 turrets, plus pilot, copilot, comm guy, and bombardier. Drop the copilot & comms, and that's a crew of 10... but I think the bombardier may have crewed the nose turret, not sure.

How goddam awesome would that be?

I want to crew a battleship with treads. Instead of a bunch of 50 cals and some bombs, how about a combination of AA missiles, AI MGs, and some Great Big Cannons?

[Captain B]

I agree, but if it's a single-man mech, like the Avatar mechs, that'd be neat (like bi-pedal Lightnings) to offer support, but also BFR-like mechs with drivers and gunners and more maneuverability, but less potential dakka or at the very least speed (tank driving down the road is gonna' get where it needs to go much faster).

[Talek Krell]

If you were going to pick a vehicle to replace, the lightning or a buggy would be it. That begs the question however:

Why are you trying to replace an existing vehicle that many people are probably fond of with a more complicated, more expensive to produce and animate vehicle that makes less sense in the setting?

[Captain B]

I like variety. The thread's about mechs.

Besides, maybe those vehicles won't be the best in all terrain types whereas a walker could be?

[RobinHood]

I don't want mechs of any sort, I dislike MAX's enough already as I think they screw up the infantry balance. I'd rather not see that done to the vehicle side as well. Plus any Walker/Mech/Gundam/Whatever will probably make me BFR rage 'cause I'm cool like that. They failed in BF2142, they failed in PS1, they fail in Warhammer (dreadnaughts). Not something I'd like to see at all. Far from a good argument, but you asked for opinions.

[Wahooo]

The game is called Hawken. Go there let Planetside live mech-free.

[Helwyr]

I didn't like using BFRs, but I also didn't think BFRs ruined Planetside. Aircav and hot-dropping was far more damaging to game play IMO. But whatever my opinions are, the fact remains that many Planetside players have frenzied hate for BFRs, and I'm not sure bringing them back is really worth it. They're mostly cool factor than offering anything really new and valuable to game play that doesn't make existing vehicles obsolete.

I would like to see AV MAXs made more viable in outdoor fights. If a Comet had faster turning and could fire while running I'd give that ago outdoors. If there was a way to shut off the ability for a MAX to run indoors I think that would be reasonably balanced. Basically more maneuverability and speed outdoors for no running at all indoors.

[Sirisian]

I agree, but if it's a single-man mech, like the Avatar mechs, that'd be neat (like bi-pedal Lightnings) to offer support
That's the general idea. I've been comparing it to a walking Reaver. Machine guns + rocket combo.

I clipped out the second part of what you said since it's exactly what I don't want to see. It seems like every time someone suggest a balanced idea there's always someone that's like "and we'll make it manned by 10 guys and give it a ton of firepower so a squad can pull it". :doh:

I'm not a big fan of the Avatar mech design (again too humanoid), but the scale is perfect.
http://sirisian.com/pictures/mechavatar.png

stuff about replacing a vehicle
This would ideally be a new vehicle. It doesn't replace any known vehicle in the game.

I dislike MAX's enough already as I think they screw up the infantry balance.
You're not the only one. Always found MAX suits to be a bit odd. You don't need to take AA indoors, so why put it on an infantry basically. And the only reason for an AV max is usually to kill other MAX units since if you ever got any kills with an AV MAX then well good for you. It was hard.

The game is called Hawken.
Good example of how to make a bad mech game actually. Not a fan of Unreal Tournament with mechs. In the future construct your posts with more thought. You know exactly what I described so why would you suggest a game that isn't even remotely like what I said? :lol:

[Mastachief]

That's the general idea. I've been comparing it to a walking Reaver. Machine guns + rocket combo.



You are just digging your own grave right there. That's more powerful than a tank, perfect for people that are wanting a solo machine it would make this game mech warrior as everyone would have one.

This is planetside it is squad/group based combat not solo look at me i want to be leet.

This thread is a great indicator to SOE that mech/bfr's are not wanted in planetside. No matter have many different ways you spin it there will be literally hundreds and probably 1000's of vet there to shoot your idea down mechs are not wanted in this game. SOE cannot be trusted to do it right and they just do not work in this sort of game.

Can i ask were you there for the BFR release and aftermath and how long did you play the original game for?

[Redshift]

I highly doubt they'll ever add a mech to the game again, even if they somehow managed to make a BFR that was balanced, the core fans of the franchise hate the idea because of the old BFR's (me included), and it's your core fans who make all the user content, i.e the apps they want to see, the fan pages etc

[CutterJohn]

I highly doubt they'll ever add a mech to the game again, even if they somehow managed to make a BFR that was balanced, the core fans of the franchise hate the idea because of the old BFR's (me included), and it's your core fans who make all the user content, i.e the apps they want to see, the fan pages etc

There are 4 general methods for moving things around on the ground. Wheels, treads(which is really just wheels that carry their own road), hovering, and legs. In a game, these things are arbitrary. Whether a vehicle is OP or not has nothing to do with the graphical representation of its movey bits, and everything to do with the numbers somewhere in a file. The BFRs would have been just as OP if they'd had wheels, treads, or hoverpods, or hell, been a floating placeholder cube. Having legs had absolutely no impact on their balance.

You may as well disapprove of text files or numbers, the things that actually allowed the model to be imbalanced.

[Redshift]

There are 4 general methods for moving things around on the ground. Wheels, treads(which is really just wheels that carry their own road), hovering, and legs. In a game, these things are arbitrary. Whether a vehicle is OP or not has nothing to do with the graphical representation of its movey bits, and everything to do with the numbers somewhere in a file. The BFRs would have been just as OP if they'd had wheels, treads, or hoverpods, or hell, been a floating placeholder cube. Having legs had absolutely no impact on their balance.

You may as well disapprove of text files or numbers, the things that actually allowed the model to be imbalanced.

I completely agree with you, however perception isn't always logical :) how often do you see someone with a touthbrush moustache since hitler fucked it up for example ;)

[CutterJohn]

Eh.. the hitler stache has always been pretty lame. Charlie Chaplin wore it because it looked ridiculous.

[Redshift]

Eh.. the hitler stache has always been pretty lame. Charlie Chaplin wore it because it looked ridiculous.

doesn't make the point any less valid :P

[Sirisian]

That's more powerful than a tank, perfect for people that are wanting a solo machine it would make this game mech warrior as everyone would have one.How is it more powerful than a tank? That's a balance issue if anything. You're kind of dense when it comes to thinking of things in terms of balance. You make these quick assumptions. Stop for a second and think about balance. Why would a mech that you imagine be more powerful than a single person tank? Do you imagine it has stronger AV weapons? That the damage a tank does is less? Those are all balance issues. The component based system I described also allows for more weaknesses than a tank could have probably to make it a skilled vehicle. (Turning yourself to take fire on certain components than others for instance).

Can i ask were you there for the BFR release and aftermath and how long did you play the original game for?Beta through BFRs and on and off since then. I personally loved BFRs and saw all their flaws. However, I'm open minded enough to realize a mech chassis can work if done correctly. I have enough faith in Higby and others at SOE to do it right.

[Mastachief]

How is it more powerful than a tank? That's a balance issue if anything. You're kind of dense when it comes to thinking of things in terms of balance. You make these quick assumptions. Stop for a second and think about balance. Why would a mech that you imagine be more powerful than a single person tank? Do you imagine it has stronger AV weapons? That the damage a tank does is less? Those are all balance issues. The component based system I described also allows for more weaknesses than a tank could have probably to make it a skilled vehicle. (Turning yourself to take fire on certain components than others for instance).

Beta through BFRs and on and off since then. I personally loved BFRs and saw all their flaws. However, I'm open minded enough to realize a mech chassis can work if done correctly. I have enough faith in Higby and others at SOE to do it right.

Well lets take the lightning for example.... its a light tank. A AV max can solo it and why would this mech have less powerful rockets than an AV max but then you also want to give it AI weapons.

It doesn't work and it doesn't fit. It's simple.

[Sirisian]

Well lets take the lightning for example.... its a light tank.
Okay a lightning is a light tank. That's great. It's less than a large tank and because of that it has both a cannon and a gatling gun. AV and AI that are balanced.

A AV max can solo it and why would this mech have less powerful rockets than an AV max but then you also want to give it AI weapons.
Limited rockets and they'd be fired all at once rather than one at a time is how I'd prefer. Taking it all into account they'd do more DPS than an AV max up close, but less as the range falls off. Regarding AI I'm not sure it would be all too effective. I was imagining them using their armor piercing guns to shoot infantry but they wouldn't be that effective. As in they could kill stupid infantry that get close, but they aren't really going to be sniping infantry. Their accuracy wouldn't allow it. I'd assume the rockets would be more effective at damaging infantry from afar or close when not using them to kill armored targets. (Their guns allow allow them to take shots at infantry).

As I said this all comes down to balance and the types of weapons. An AV max would still pose a threat to the vehicle. Remember to keep in mind though that AV maxes can go inside and strafe inside doorways where a mech can't go.

[Helwyr]

You are just digging your own grave right there. That's more powerful than a tank, perfect for people that are wanting a solo machine it would make this game mech warrior as everyone would have one.

This is planetside it is squad/group based combat not solo look at me i want to be leet. [...]


I'm mostly indifferent to whether Mechs get in the game or not, but some of the comments regarding what's balanced, what's not, and what Planetside is about do interest me.

Are you saying here that a walking Reaver is an overpowered solo vehicle that shouldn't exist, but a flying Reaver is perfectly ok?

[DviddLeff]

I like mechs and I would like to see them in PS at some point... however the stigma attached to BFRs is much too strong, at least for most of the veterans.

Here are my thoughts on how BFRs could have been balanced in PS1:


Nothing has caused more people to quit PS at the same time than these as when they first entered the game they completely changed the dynamic of the outdoor battles as they were way, way overpowered. They then got a year long beating with the nerf bat until they were usable but not overpowered, but by then the damage was done to the games population.

Now they sit uncomfortably in the scheme of vehicles, being still overpowered when it comes to a single crew vehicle (to compare look at the Reaver and Lightning, the other single crewed offensive vehicles on the battlefield).

I suggest that BFRs get extra crewmen for control of each weapon arm. This turns them into heavy tanks, slotting them into the game in a balanced way.

They should also choose one of the following:

extra gunner turret
cloaking field (requires infiltrator pilot)
regenerating shield
flight pack (VS only)
weapon feeds (increase fire rate, TR only)
extra armour (NC only)


This extra crew requirement and removal of the shield for all types would warrant a slight armour value and model size increase. The different names would also become redundant and the game would finally have the heavy tanks it deserves. This coupled with the hard point system would make the game very appealing to mechwarrior fans while keeping the game balanced.

Now regarding single man mechs they would be the equivalent of the Lightning, but slower but with similar options to the "heavy tank" versions:


cloaking field (requires infiltrator pilot)
regenerating shield
flight pack (VS only)
weapon feeds (increase fire rate, TR only)
extra armour (NC only)


This gives the solo player three choices when it comes to combat vehicles; Mossie/Reaver/Dyson for fast hit and run strikes, Lightning for middling speed assaults and the Light BFR for slower but more agile assaults as the mechs could stalk through dense terrain that the Lightning couldn't access.

[Malorn]

Flight on any mech is no bueno, vs or no it is a tremendous advantage. Also these have too much similarity to MAX units. Theyre the same thing. If you want to make this about how to make MAX .ore interesting, great. This idea of the thread is just dumb as the poll clearly shows.

[Sirisian]

Flight on any mech is no bueno, vs or no it is a tremendous advantage.
Even if AA can lock onto the target? With the new terrain and large cliff walls that would be my primary reason to have some system for flight available as an option.

See my preference originally was that upgrades like that would cost resources that can't be purchased so players would earn such features over time instead of getting other things in the game the same way a player might upgrade the secondary weapons on their tank.

Also these have too much similarity to MAX units. Theyre the same thing.
Read the previous pages. I covered the differences in detail. Among the most obvious are the smaller target size and the ability to go inside and the single role methodology. That alsong with the new PS2 features that allow them to choose among a set of abilities. This while always being able to get at infantry.

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

[Traak]

As a side note, the Mechwarrior game franchise was bought, a new game about to be released, then a lawsuit over the striking resemblance some or one of the 'Mechs had to prior art by someone else in another game or something.

Too bad. Mechwarrior would make a great MMOFPS, I think. Being able to play an Elemental would have been grand fun, I think.

[Raymac]

I like mechs and I would like to see them in PS at some point... however the stigma attached to BFRs is much too strong, at least for most of the veterans.

This is the bottom line, and why mechs won't be welcome for PS2 at launch. It's like you could be the nicest, smartest, most fun person in the world, but if your name is Hitler Bin Laden, then nobody is gonna be inviting you to a party.

[Sirisian]

This is the bottom line, and why mechs won't be welcome for PS2 at launch.
It would be easy if it was the bottom line. There are people that hate bipedal mechs in games. This came up during the BF2142 game.

If it was just a problem of some veterans that can't get over BFRs and aren't capable of comprehending a balanced mech then it wouldn't be a problem. Most of the people that don't want mechs are using the BFR balance issues as an excuse because they don't like the chasis design for one reason or another, but don't want to say it. That's the simple explanation.

I fear one of the reasons though is because they'd prefer the game was more realistic and dropped the science fiction genre.

[BorisBlade]

Because the argument being made was that mechs attract people to the game and I agree mechs attract someone who likes mechs but not necessarily someone who likes team based shooters.

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.

[Vancha]

This entire thread is a demonstration in human irrationality.

[SgtMAD]

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.