Gameplay: Variable Fighters - Balanced Transforming Walker/Aircraft (Think Viking from SC2)

[Zekeen]

Forgive the poll guys, this is so I can tell if people like or hate the idea. If this idea gets enough support, I'm going to draw out some concept art. If it gets blown apart and crashes to the ground, I'm saving myself some time. Thus, the poll.


The idea is this - Add in variable aircraft, about the mass of a Liberator or slightly bigger/smaller, that can transform into a walker that allows it to use more ground based heavier weapons. Slower than fighters, with the fighting strength of a Lightning. Rather expensive.

What this means - Imagine a Reaver with legs but gun arms instead of hoards of rocket pods. Less power, more versatility.

Pros -
It is a mobile weapon platform.
It can fly and deploy for quickly reinforcing and assaulting enemy positions.
It is sturdy, with the armor near that of a Lightning.
It has powerful but limited ground weapons, but only in the form of guns.
It can be modded to increase speed for armor and vice versa.
The ground gun arms can be modded separated into AI or AV type variants.


Cons -
Weak air-to-air capabilities.
It cannot carry lock on missiles as a result of their bulk.
It cannot use it's heavier secondary weapons in air mode. It must deploy.
It is much slower in aerial mode than fighter craft.
It is very expensive.
No Anti Air Weapons, relies on a fighter's main gun.
High Vertical Visibility means getting hit easier.




I already have concept sketches for the NC and TR Variable Fighters. NC is cheaper, so they actually use a Reaver in the creation of it. The TR is based on the Mosquito but is it's own craft, looking much tougher and refined. The VS has been in my head a while but I haven't successfully drawn out a concept good enough yet. All concepts include an over head to show how the legs and gun arms transform back in to form an aircraft.


------------------------------------------------------------------


And now for a bit heavier discussion to further explain it and why it's not a bad idea.

This concept has been in my head for several months now. It came to me when I was thinking about how someone had to be drunk when thinking up the original BFRs, giving a single man ungodly power and letting hundreds do it at once in and infantry and lighter vehicle war. It was terrible as you all should remember. But the concept was kinda cool... but all it was, was "Robot". So, I was thinking on the term "Battle Frame Robotics". A REALLY cool sounding phrase, but I then though, it had to mean something more. So I then decided that Battle Frames sound more like a fighter craft word with a bit of robotics in there. Basically like Veritech fighters from Macross/Robotech in their guardian form (half jet, half robot).

The function of Variable Fighters is basically a sort of VTOL land vehicle. It's like an expensive lightning, but with more varied weaponry over more powerful weapons. Much more maneuverable than land vehicle, but slower than a lightning on the ground, and slower than most aircraft in the sky. It's a clunky and difficult aircraft, and strange land vehicle.

The effectiveness of it is that it is a quick response land vehicle. A tank must go around a gorge, or follow a road among trees, find a road up a mountain. A Variable Fighter can just fly over and assist. The high cost for it's power keep it from being something seen too often.

Weapon Systems - Rather a simple concept for it. It carries a main gun, usable in fighter mode, and two variable weapon arms, usable only in land mode. So, while it always has the main machine gun of a fighter, it has 2 MAX-like alternating weapons that can be fired alternatively or together and may be modded to fit AI or AV roles. Due to it's odd function as a hybrid, it carries no AA weapons, forcing the user to engage in MG dog fights or week safety with allies or inside locations that fights have a problem flying into.

In the end, the vehicle is a clunky mix of MAX, Lightning, and Aircraft. It's not better at any role (actually worse), but it can serve much more, is more logistically mobile, and can assist allies sooner. This is what a Battle Frame should be.

(Also, due note someone has had a similar idea back in 2011, but it was all about the old BFR mindset. I want to change the concept of BFR to be balanced and fit in the game, not be a game breaker)

[Zekeen]

Seeing as I have gotten no responses yet, I feel I have to ask you guys for some sort of opinion on what you think. I only received a few positive poll answers and thus, I am unsure if it is a good idea or negatively received idea. If you're just browsing, at least take a moment to click on the poll, or if possible, leave your opinion.

Really, negative reaction is better than NO reaction.

[Lumberchuk]

cool idea but before they implement cool vehicles like this I would hope they will put in more standard ones like jeeps. I also feel like this maybe too futuristic? I mean, though PS take place in the future they still use tanks infantry and aircraft so it still feels like a modern day battlefield, I wonder if this would take away from that feel.

[Zekeen]

Originally Posted by Lumberchuk

cool idea but before they implement cool vehicles like this I would hope they will put in more standard ones like jeeps. I also feel like this maybe too futuristic? I mean, though PS take place in the future they still use tanks infantry and aircraft so it still feels like a modern day battlefield, I wonder if this would take away from that feel.

Oh most definitely! The return of things like the Harrasser, Muraurder, Enforcer, and Thresher come first, but I want to give an idea forward that may get the devs thinking on something a little out there and how to balance it. It by no means is a "let's have this "right now", type of suggestion. But I doubt a small walker would steal away from the feeling. I'm not asking for a more humanistic mech approach. It would be much more like a walker based on an aircraft design, so it would not be much of a tank feel. I think it would add another layer of depth to some strategic plans. Not to mention, in no way, a "large" robotic machine. One of my sketches was for a Reaver chassis with mechanical folding legs. A Reaver is MUCH smaller than a BFR of PS1. The end result is more like crossing a Lightning with a MAX.

[Talek Krell]

I'm sort of having trouble seeing how it meshes sensibly into the game, both aesthetically and balance wise. It seems like it would be either overpowered on account of its mobility, or underpowered to compensate for that mobility, which would create a certain dissonance when this thing is like 3 times the size of a MAX but does less damage. Plus there's the question of whether we actually want vehicles to be mobile in this particular way. Personally if we need Lightnings flying around I'd rather there be a Lody replacement than this.

Also personal is my aesthetic opinion, but I don't think it fits. Somewhat difficult to explain but it gives me the same feeling as the mechs. It's just.....going too Japanese?

[Zekeen]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

I'm sort of having trouble seeing how it meshes sensibly into the game, both aesthetically and balance wise. It seems like it would be either overpowered on account of its mobility, or underpowered to compensate for that mobility, which would create a certain dissonance when this thing is like 3 times the size of a MAX but does less damage. Plus there's the question of whether we actually want vehicles to be mobile in this particular way. Personally if we need Lightnings flying around I'd rather there be a Lody replacement than this.

Also personal is my aesthetic opinion, but I don't think it fits. Somewhat difficult to explain but it gives me the same feeling as the mechs. It's just.....going too Japanese?

If you think mechs mean Japanese then you need a reality check and maybe to go to art school of differences of western and eastern styles... human shaped robots are Japanese, gun arm gun cockpits with reverse joint legs in MechWarrior style is Western.

But yes, it can be a concern, but it would not be weaker than a MAX, it'd be quite capable, just not so much that it can replace a vehicle. It's mobile, but it's not fast, be it land or ground, it's slower than most of the choices. On ground maybe faster or slower than a MBT, depending. But for the most part it is far behind other vehicles in terms of speed. It's got a high profile to make it easier to hit, but enough mobility to sneak behind corners, being as it has vertical height instead of length, it can hide in urban areas easier ,and navigate better. There's a useful function for them, even if you can make them weak for their price. It's something I want to get attention to in order to try and inspire the concept if going outside the basic and doing a few things that are "out there".

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Not really sure that adding Valkyries to the equation makes sense in a universe that has no giants or other giant robots to duke it out with.

Also, c'mon, Valkyries w/out a Macross Missile Massacre weapon? For shame...

Now THAT would be overkill. But I'm talking much smaller mecha. I'm literally talking about taking a Reaver Chassis and sticking legs on it. Is that REALLY all that big?

[GreatMazinkaise]

Not really sure that adding Valkyries to the equation makes sense in a universe that has no giants or other giant robots to duke it out with.

Also, c'mon, Valkyries w/out a Macross Missile Massacre weapon? For shame...

[GreatMazinkaise]

So you want an Armored Trooper-sized Valkyrie?

[Rexdezi]

better traction... than a TANK?? NOTHING has better traction than tracks. NOTHING. Certainly not bloody legs.

[Zolan]

Starting to sound like BFRs with wings... and we all know how much everyone hated BFRs.

[Zekeen]

Originally Posted by Rexdezi

better traction... than a TANK?? NOTHING has better traction than tracks. NOTHING. Certainly not bloody legs.

I don't think you understand how tracks work. Really, tracks are like across between legs and wheels. It's a constant placement of track plates in order to move, it's a lot like walking, but it is still run by wheels turning them. Occasionally the ground gives way, and as a result, the tracks DIG into the ground, giving it trouble with traction. It also has trouble on softer ground types. Legs get better traction because they don't move on the ground, they step over it. Legs are far slower, but have far better traction than tracks, because they don't move, they lift, move, drop, repeat.

Originally Posted by Zolan

Starting to sound like BFRs with wings... and we all know how much everyone hated BFRs.

I talked quite a bit on this if you'll reread my post. A BFR was a god mode vehicle. It had the best guns, best armor, had shields, and could fly. It was basically the idea of a "boss mode" vehicle, but everyone could use them at once. That's why it screwed up. If a vehicle is WEAKER than a Lightning, then it isn't a BFR. It's more of a mobility standard with less speed for versatility.

Well, I now know to never post any ideas without concepts anymore. People start thinking it has something to do with something it doesn't.

[Rexdezi]

Originally Posted by Zekeen

I don't think you understand how tracks work. Really, tracks are like across between legs and wheels. It's a constant placement of track plates in order to move, it's a lot like walking, but it is still run by wheels turning them. Occasionally the ground gives way, and as a result, the tracks DIG into the ground, giving it trouble with traction. It also has trouble on softer ground types. Legs get better traction because they don't move on the ground, they step over it. Legs are far slower, but have far better traction than tracks, because they don't move, they lift, move, drop, repeat.

I don't think YOU understand how tracks work. They work by having the largest amount of surface area to increase traction. Tracks are unrivaled in the amount of traction they get. You try walk through a sand dune... the softer ground you mentioned... There is NOTHING better than tank tracks to get theough. You walk through it in your shoes or even your imaginary walker... you will sink into the sand, whereas the tank that weighs a fuckton and a half more than you, will just power on by you.

legs better than tracks? what have you been smoking kid?

[VoodooJanus]

But now consider the forest: your tank can't drive across the fallen log easily without destroying it (in the game, this is impossible) while the walker can simply step over it. I think the problem is that the OP didn't mean 'traction'.

Legs however do have a good advantage over treads when crossing difficult ground. Rarely would they get stuck on a rock, for instance. Or when navigating narrow passes: treads tend to lose out because they NEED larger amounts of surface area to function, even though in softer soils they have an advantage because they have access to it.

It's an admirable idea, and could be done properly. I think they should function first and foremost as an Anti Infantry unit, then as an AV unit.

[Zolan]

Originally Posted by Zekeen

I talked quite a bit on this if you'll reread my post. A BFR was a god mode vehicle. It had the best guns, best armor, had shields, and could fly. It was basically the idea of a "boss mode" vehicle, but everyone could use them at once. That's why it screwed up. If a vehicle is WEAKER than a Lightning, then it isn't a BFR. It's more of a mobility standard with less speed for versatility.

Well, I now know to never post any ideas without concepts anymore. People start thinking it has something to do with something it doesn't.

The idea is fine, it's just that it's filling a gap that it can't fill without being good at both air and vehicle combat like BFRs were. If it's pretty much a Reaver with legs and is competing in both air and ground combat, dedicated air and ground vehicles will utterly destroy it. Not to mention the easy kills for infantry with lock-on missiles and flak weapons, if it would move at lower speeds as was suggested.

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by Zolan

Starting to sound like BFRs with wings... and we all know how much everyone hated BFRs.

So, is there a reason you dislike BFR's besides the fact that they were imbalanced?