Could BFRs work better with the new resource system?

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Numberthirteen

(Sirisian, but his tagline wants "creatures" ?)

Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

[Capt Mytre]

Just an idea from my favorite game of all time:





Their primary use was anti-infantry, with side roles of anti-air and anti-vehicle. Slower than tanks, but faster than a running infantry, they were designed to have the height advantage, superior fire power and speed to dominate over infantry. Due to their size and the way they fired their missiles, they were only ever good at close - medium range verse tanks.

[KrazeyVIII]

Want mech? Play MECH-Warrior.

Want to ruin an MMO-FPS? Put Mechs in it.

This topic pisses me off so much it hurts. How you possibly twist your thoughts towards thinking having BFR/Mech in the game is completely beyond comprehension.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Capt Mytre

Just an idea from my favorite game of all time:





Their primary use was anti-infantry, with side roles of anti-air and anti-vehicle. Slower than tanks, but faster than a running infantry, they were designed to have the height advantage, superior fire power and speed to dominate over infantry. Due to their size and the way they fired their missiles, they were only ever good at close - medium range verse tanks.

Yeah and by some "magic" that so many jaded people in this thread probably wouldn't understand:

-They looked cool,
-They had a specific role,
-They were balanced,
-And they were fun.

[SgtMAD]

I don't give a shit whether they are made out of pixie dust or cr5 farts,when BFR's were put in the game it led to the biggest pop drop in the history of PS, that isn't any wild science fiction,its a damn fact, one that Smedly himself has acknowledged by saying that BFRs won't be in PS2,all SOE had to do was read the "quit" survey data to figure that all out.

[Tatwi]

It occurred to me that a Mech style vehicle would be a nifty replacement for the One-Manned Field Turret (OMFT) from PS1.

Pretty simple really... Instead of just magically placing the turret, the Engineer would get into the vehicle and take it to the location where he needs it deployed. Once deployed, anyone he wants will be allowed to use (but not relocate) it. While the Engineer is moving the turret it has minimal firepower, but once placed it has access to its specialized weapon (which can be customized). I'd make it so that a fully advanced Engineer can only deploy 3 Mech-Turrets at a time, however they would be able to be placed anywhere they can physically fit in the game world. I'd also go so far as to make all turrets of all types exist only if an Engineer placed them, including those deployed inside bases. These Mech-Turrets would then be the PS2 equivalent of the base-bound turrets of PS1 as well as the PS2 equivalent of the OMFT (as well as a modestly useful, over sized, and cool looking, MAX for Engineers).

This seems more entertaining for Engineers than just having the magic gun for turrets. Also, the size of the Mech would give enemy scouts an idea of where turrets may be placed much easier than attempting to spot an Engineer running around with a giant glue gun. Personally, I'd take pride in being part of a Mechanized Corp. of Engineers if I got to have one of these things!

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Numberthirteen

Someone mentioned "realism" [...] BFR/bipedal piloted stuff stretches the gaming imagination a bit too much even though it is just another type of "vehicle". Although PS is Sci-Fi-- It used vehicles that have some basis in reality. You can think of a "real life" equivalent for most of them (shit ever see the show "rat patrol" and their hillbilly buggy?). That was part of the attraction for me-- of course it is fantasy, but not ork/dork/robot/griffin fantasy. It is guys shooting at other guys.

Basti made a similar comment before about realism. Personally I have no problem imagining mechs in a science-fiction world. I get the impression some people are more used to modern FPS games so having the different theme seems odd to them.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

I tend to be more open to balanced ideas if I think they can make the game more enjoyable. Makes you wonder what others are thinking as they post in this thread, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Capt Mytre

Just an idea from my favorite game of all time:

They were okay. I wouldn't call their design "cool". The lack of arms bothered me.

Originally Posted by KrazeyVIII

This topic pisses me off so much it hurts. How you possibly twist your thoughts towards thinking having BFR/Mech in the game is completely beyond comprehension.

Really? I don't understand how a topic about a vehicle chassis in a game could make anyone emotional. I mentioned before I'd prefer if they launched with 30+ different vehicles so there was some variety in the game. I think the developers releasing with only a handful is making people short-sighted. We know they'll probably add stuff like buggies or a phantasm, but beyond that you have people that are fine if they didn't add anymore vehicles. Starting to think maybe we have some PS1 vets that don't like vehicles.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I believe that same argument was used when people said the lightning shouldn't exist in PS2 since the only different was presumably a chaingun.

If you'll forgive me for being a bit unkind, those people must have been a bit dense. It doesn't take a genius to see how perfectly the Lightning fills the role of light-armored support and reconnaissance. Coupled with modular weapons it's also a promising specialist vehicle, and on top of that it caters to the audience who prefers to operate independently from other players. It fills quite a number of roles that the MBTs aren't suited for, and does it without so much as scratching the surface of plausibility.

Originally Posted by Tatwi

It occurred to me that a Mech style vehicle would be a nifty replacement for the One-Manned Field Turret (OMFT) from PS1.

That's certainly a curious idea but it seems like having to run back and forth to relocate and replace three different vehicles would be far and away more annoying than just carrying a deployable in your pack. I'm not sure how you plan to get them up on the walls either. And does doing so imply that they'd be deployable in an enemy facility as well?

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Starting to think maybe we have some PS1 vets that don't like vehicles.

That's an interesting conclusion. I haven't noticed any inexplicably strong resistance to well thought out vehicles.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'm not making an untrue statement; I'm observing a shift in the argument.

Because you kept trying to shift the argument.

If you were paying attention to the exchange you would have noticed the shift yourself. We started with "mechs can do any role" and then it went to "they can do any role but tanks"

Yep. I conceded they cannot be tanks. Which is where it stopped. And they can only not be conventional tanks in the sense that they cannot give cover to infantry. If you don't care about that, they would be perfectly fine as tanks.

and then "well they can do this limited set of roles that some other vehicles can do".

Point out where I said that please. Unless you think my tongue in cheek statement that they couldn't be aircraft or boats was serious. I also said you wouldn't want them as transports since it would look pretty silly.

Since recognizing that the argument has moved away from practical roles of mechs and onto statements about how it's just a game and we dont' have to be practical.

Because you kept bringing the argument back to the fact that they wouldn't be practical for any purpose whatsoever. Which is patently false because its a game and they can be as practical as anyone wants them to be, minus the one minor downside of it being taller.

Now that you're up to speed, I still don't know what to say to casting aside logical reasoning and practical design so we can have mechs who, by Cutter's own admission have no value other than coolness factor.

Still haven't seen it, have you?

Treads and wheels have no practical value other than coolness. There is nothing either of those can do that hovering can't. And several things hovering can do that wheels and treads cannot, such as going over water and strafing.

And don't even think of trying to argue that their downsides gives them a role after all the nonsense you've spouted about how legs downsides are impossible to balance for and would ensure nobody would use them.

Your self described logical reasoning requires that all wheeled and tracked vehicles be removed from the game because they are subpar to hovering.

[Mackenz]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Requires more resources? Why are you trying to make an overpowered BFR? I thought it was clear that if you have to make longer timers or make it cost more resources then the it's gonna be overpowered as a stock vehicle. Any form of a mech needs to be balanced as a normal vehicle that a player can be expected to use just like a lightning or a tank. Placing artifical restrictions on it to justify an overpowered vehicle is exactly what the Planetside 1 developers did and failed at.

Wow, hyperbole much? I was thinking a similar amount of resources to a an MBT, or lightning. If those take 0 resources then a SMAX should be the same at that.

Remember - you are the one proposing a mech that is more powerful than a MAX. I am just drawing equivalents with an upgraded MAX.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You can have a mech and a MAX in the game at the same time. No one is saying a MAX can't go outside with the mechs and lightnings and tanks. In fact they're not arguing that at all. We're simply saying that a mech can't go inside or where infantry is. They can't for instance sit on the huge base walls and shoot out among other places. Because we want a vehicle. Not a soldier's armor. If that point isn't clear by now I'm not sure how to be more direct.

Actually, you made the comment about "why would you use a MAX outdoors if you can pull a lightning or MBT".

The answer to why MAXes might be pulled over lightning/MBTs could be (and thanks for some of the suggestion in a previous post):

• They can aim down into canyons;
• They can get to terrain tracked vehicles cannot;
• They can move rapidly outdoors via overdrive;
• They can be transported by air;
• They *may* (and I have no idea about this) take less resources.

That's off the top of my head. Of course, some of those you will point out can be performed by a mech. Which gets back to duplication of roles again and why I suggested an upgraded MAX.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Mackenz

That's off the top of my head. Of course, some of those you will point out can be performed by a mech. Which gets back to duplication of roles again and why I suggested an upgraded MAX.

MBTs are duplicating the roles of the lightnings. Nobody seems to have an issue with it.

[RNFB]

I like the idea of smaller mechs.

And instead of the VS having a humanoid thing, I think they should have some insect-like thing. Making a human looking thing is pretty backwards for the VS.

[Verruna]

BFRs were definitely a disaster in PS1, their introduction to the battlefield ruined so many aspects of PS1 it wasn't even funny.

In PS2 if Mechs were balanced to begin with and had a role, i wouldn't mind - with our current variety of vehicles i'd have to strongly oppose their addition at this point though. I'd strongly oppose any mech stronger than a MBT regardless, mini mechs sound somewhat interesting but what role would they fill that isn't already filled well enough? If they had the ability to traverse terrain tanks couldn't reach - and were a bit weaker than tanks in dps and armor maybe they can have some viability.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

MBTs are duplicating the roles of the lightnings. Nobody seems to have an issue with it.

1-man tank is not a Role.

Lightnings are light tanks and have a niche as the best ground-based AA and are fast.

1) Driver AA gun - Lightning is the PS2 successor to the Skygaurd and has the best vehicle-based AA (per Nanite vehicles webcast)

2) Speed - Lightning is faster than any MBT, this means it can actually keep up with a sunderer, which is also faster than any MBT.

3) More flexible driver gun - in addition to AA it looks as though the Driver gun of the Lightning is more flexible and has better specialization options.

4) Weak armor - it will die in a few hits compared to MBTs

5) Resources - it can be safely assumed that the lighting will cost less than a MBT in resources.

6) Power - overall firepower of lightning is lower than MBTs.


The lightning's role is AA, escort, rapid advance flanking light tank. As its name might imply...

MBTs are slower, have more armor, more firepower, an heavier armament, but not as good AA as the lightning. It has its niche due to speed, cost, and AA superiority, much like the Skyguard had a niche.

Maybe a player is low on resources, so he pulls a lightning instead of a MBT.

Maybe a player wants to do some AA support, so he pulls a lightning instead of a MBT (which has inferior AA, is slower, and would be stationary while firing the secondary gun without a second crew member).

So no, the lightning does not duplicate the role of the MBTs.

[CutterJohn]

Thanks M. I was using an ancient technique known as sarcasm to point out that vehicles that superficially look similar can have different strengths and weaknesses and different reasons for being pulled.