Role of MAXs

[Lonehunter]

I would have loved to see MAXs close range only via melee and flamethrowers, and add riot shields to literally designate them to the front line.

[Coreldan]

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

I would have loved to see MAXs close range only via melee and flamethrowers, and add riot shields to literally designate them to the front line.

Would most likely make MAXs useless in anything but basefights, as in the open the ranges would be too long to be useful with a flamethrower.

Also, then the only way to get proper AA would be through vehicles, pretty much.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Warborn

PS1 did a lot of things poorly, and its implementation of MAXs was bad, in my opinion. Going the same route for PS2 isn't any more acceptable, although with how distinct the other classes are from each other it does make it more egregious in my opinion.

MAX abilities are combat junk. Lockdown, shield, and something else for the VS. And something not unlike the run mode from PS1. None of that is terribly important. The class will still be in direct competition with heavy assault for the title of "king of walking around shooting stuff with guns and doing literally nothing else".

I would have rather they went a totally different direction with the MAXs. Give them a style of combat which is unlike any of the other classes. I remember, before they were described in much detail, I envisioned them as being turned into a close combat class. I think that's the way they should have gone. Given them regular infantry shields (just a lot of it), good speed and mobility, and various melee weapons, flamethrowers, and other stuff. Give Planetside its first close range killer.

I still disagree with what you are saying though I really like the idea of the up close melee class. I agree with you that is a very unique role it could take on.

However, my impression is you are saying the Light Assaults jumphet makes it unique. That is exactly what the VS MAX had in PS1 so how is it unique in one case and not in the other? Also, lockdown and sheilds and the other max abilities in the first game were very important. TR MAXs could hold down hallways more easily than any other class when deployed. The Vanu MAX could bypass walls and jump up to eliminate soldiers more easily. The NC MAX had added longevity when crashing through doors that no other class had.

I understand how you might be concerned with the MAX competing with HA for the role of "king of walking around shooting stuff with guns and doing literally nothing else" in PS2. I agree that is a concern but I wouldn't get concerned until we no more details about their abilities.

I still don't understand how you thought they were bad in PS1 because even if you take out the MAX abilities they still had nothing else to compete with in terms of battlefield longetivity and firepower. You had to approach a MAX completely differently than any other type of soldier. You had to use a Decimator or another AV weapon. I don't understand how that doesn't completely set them apart.

[Chaff]

.
I like the melee role. Maybe give them a lazer katana or some kind of Thor Hammer ?...for brutal body-part-mutilating close quarter blood bath delivery.

Outside, could still have old PS1 roles avail....AA, AV, AI. I would like to see PS2 MAX outdoor AI essentially prove too be a poor choice.....like it was in PS1. MAX AI could still be usefull in towers, hallways, or Caves (if we get more tactical, smaller, non-vehicle infighting sized caves). Caves that offered Special Ops shortcut or recon advantages, served as chokepoint shortcuts, sniper havens,....would be something I'd be interested in the devs adding.

Making their MAXX's primary feature be BLOODY close quarter melee fighting would certainly add new wrinkles to the gamplay...and visually...would certainly be entertaining...at least the first few times you witnessed it.
.

[kaffis]

My guess is that MAXes will continue to have vehicle-class armor, meaning that they're much more durable than Heavy Assault. I'm on the fence over whether I expect them to have more or less firepower than HA, but it will certainly be more configurable. They will end up being somewhat limited in their mobility; if not actually slow, then unmaneuverable.

Firepower will come down to two things, I think. Whether or not you double up your weapons' roles, and whether HA is able to carry multiple main weapons as Rexo could in PS1. If HA is restricted to one weapon, I more or less expect a doubled-up weapon role MAX to equal it in firepower, while a dual-role weapon loadout on the MAX will sacrifice raw firepower for versatility.

On the other hand, if HA can carry two main weapons, I expect that a doubled up weapon MAX will outperform the HA's firepower when firing both weapons, since it's sacrificing the ability to switch (that the HA has or that the MAX could have with a dual-role loadout) to specialize.

Another way they could go to differentiate them would be to give the MAX defensive-oriented special abilities (like lockdown), and tune the HA to be the offensive firepower butting heads with the dug-in MAX specialists. Which would probably work out quite well, as engineers creating static defenses would be great buddies to MAXes defending a dug in position.

[Duddy]

The roles they brought before and will continue to bring are (IMO):

• Changing infantry combat flow, the fact they have vehicle armour forces the use of AV in PS1 and now the HA class in PS2
• Providing type specific weapons platform comparable to some vehicles but on infantry, I imagine this will still be the case when doubling up weapon types
• Serving as an infantry vanguard, the fact they are relatively beefy allows them to go in ahead of squishier classes, it seems to no longer be an exclusive role but one shared with HA

The new aspects the appear to be bringing:

• "Crowd control", an extension of the infantry flow. By adding weapons such as flame-throwers I think they'll shape infantry combat more so this time around
• Specific weapon type support, by giving up sheer fire power they'll be able to fulfil more than 1 role at once

You may disagree, but the MAX certainly filled a role before and will continue to do so now.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Duddy

The roles they brought before and will continue to bring are (IMO):

• Changing infantry combat flow, the fact they have vehicle armour forces the use of AV in PS1 and now the HA class in PS2
• Providing type specific weapons platform comparable to some vehicles but on infantry, I imagine this will still be the case when doubling up weapon types
• Serving as an infantry vanguard, the fact they are relatively beefy allows them to go in ahead of squishier classes, it seems to no longer be an exclusive role but one shared with HA

The new aspects the appear to be bringing:

• "Crowd control", an extension of the infantry flow. By adding weapons such as flame-throwers I think they'll shape infantry combat more so this time around
• Specific weapon type support, by giving up sheer fire power they'll be able to fulfil more than 1 role at once

You may disagree, but the MAX certainly filled a role before and will continue to do so now.

thank you sir.

[Bravix]

Originally Posted by Chaff

.
Maybe give them a lazer katana or some kind of Thor Hammer ?

NO

That would kill immersion in one fell swoop.

Melee shouldn't be the MAX's main niche, but I'm all for it being a kind of add on. Normal weapons should be more effective though.

Example, the flamethrower should generally be more useful than a melee weapon.

But seriously, no 'lazer katanas' or other gimicky weapons please. If there must be a laser sword of some sort, fine...but no katanas.

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by Bravix

Melee shouldn't be the MAX's main niche, but I'm all for it being a kind of add on. Normal weapons should be more effective though.

Example, the flamethrower should generally be more useful than a melee weapon.

Agreed, whilst I'd love to see a "melee" attack I'd prefer it to be more of a shove/knock-back than an actual attack.

HA is the close range class, MAXes simply can bring powerful weapons to bear upon the enemy. To that extent MAXes should be vulnerable if people get up close! They should rely on others to assist them if people get close (and more so behind them).

This said, I suggest the melee attack because they should be vulnerable because you can out manoeuvre them, not that you can get up in their face. It would have limited use, i.e. primarily defensive, due to the low turning speed.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Duddy

You may disagree, but the MAX certainly filled a role before and will continue to do so now.

The only things from that list I'd say were compelling parts of the PS1 MAX was the AA ability. Their AV wasn't anything remarkable, but MAXs were valuable for their AA potential and that was by far the most common version you'd see. I'd want to keep that.

The rest is aside from the point. Even in PS1 the reality of this talk about forcing people to change weapons was the burning question of whether people were more effective at running around shooting with a MAX or with rexo. In PS1, the answer was unanimously rexo, although MAX crashes, pounder-camping, AA, and really I guess VS MAXs in general had their uses. For all you may cite MAXs as adding to the game, the fact was they couldn't hack, could heal/repair themselves, were slow and clumsy, and were easy prey for AV and vehicles. Rexo infantry were far-and-away the better option for killing people and vehicles as infantry, those couple exceptions aside.

In PS2, what way will the pendulum swing? More importantly, though, what is the point of giving all that attention to a class which adds such little to the game? Why not tell PS1 to go fuck its hat, and redesign MAXs from the ground up to be cool and interesting, and really different? There are a lot of ways they could do that, but the one niche that PS has never had is a class which is all about close range fighting, melee stuff, and so on. I think making MAXs relatively fast, agile, and somewhat less durable, but with strong close-range ability and good AA weaponry would be a very interesting take on an old, failed concept.

PS2 being beholden to the concepts and, more importantly, the mistakes from PS1 will be to its detriment. There's no reason to make MAXs and HA two classes which will continue to vie for dominance over the other, when mixing it up with a totally different approach to gameplay is standing just left of centre.

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

However, my impression is you are saying the Light Assaults jumphet makes it unique. That is exactly what the VS MAX had in PS1 so how is it unique in one case and not in the other?

VS MAXs don't have jumpjets this time. I do agree that jumpjets really made a pretty big difference in PS1, though.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Warborn

In PS2, what way will the pendulum swing? More importantly, though, what is the point of giving all that attention to a class which adds such little to the game? Why not tell PS1 to go fuck its hat, and redesign MAXs from the ground up to be cool and interesting, and really different? There are a lot of ways they could do that, but the one niche that PS has never had is a class which is all about close range fighting, melee stuff, and so on. I think making MAXs relatively fast, agile, and somewhat less durable, but with strong close-range ability and good AA weaponry would be a very interesting take on an old, failed concept.

Despite the fact that I disagree with your take on how effectively the MAX was implemented into PS1, I totally agree with what you are trying to say about PS2 MAXs, they need a unique role that stands apart from a bigger HA. The only difference between us is I am not really worried about that since they still have not announced their unique abilities. If they turn out to be minor or less than compelling I too will question where exactly it stands in the game.

good talk.

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by Warborn

The only things from that list I'd say were compelling parts of the PS1 MAX was the AA ability. Their AV wasn't anything remarkable, but MAXs were valuable for their AA potential and that was by far the most common version you'd see. I'd want to keep that.

That is a fair point, as are the rest you make, but I think the question is why was this the case?

I'd argue the other variants were much weaker for the following reason; AV was incredibly common place. As you quite rightly mentioned, Rexos ability to be flexible and self sustaining meant it dominated gameplay, as such the more Rexos there were the more likely you would have a sufficient amount of AV available.

The more AV there was the more the following happened:

• You wouldn't need AV MAXes because you had enough collective fire power to deal with vehicular threats
• MAXes became increasingly vulnerable the more AV being fielded which reduced the amount fielded

This generally didn't affect AA MAXes so much, because they tended to keep away from any fights with much in the way of infantry (hence avoiding increased AV numbers and their weapons were far more effective at the AA role than the ESAV and decimator which made them an easy choice.

I don't think the design of the MAX was off (too much), I think it was a victim of the context it existed in. With the context changed I think they have a real chance of working properly.

As for creating the "close range" class, I think this is what the new Rexo is meant to be. They imply it certainly has limited ranged effectiveness plus the ESHA and the fact it has the ability to absorb a lot of damage temporarily can't be ignored. It doesn't have melee weapons, but I'm sceptical how melee weapons would work in such a large shooter.

With this said, as stated previously, I see the MAX as a heavily armoured infantry weapons platform rather than a "close brawler". For any W40K fans I liken their role to that of the Tau Broadside Battlesuit. Provided that their weapons certainly do bring more to the table than their handheld counterparts then I still see it as a totally valid role.

Alas, I think we kind of agree on the issues here, but have very different perspectives and outlooks. :P

[sylphaen]

In terms of equivalence to PS1, here is how I understand the job specialization in PS2:
- Heavy Assault is equivalent to the REXO+HA+AV+"Personal shield" combo from PS1.
- Medic/Engineers are Agile+MA+Adv.Medic/Adv.Engi. combo
- Light assault is the real new class with Agile+MA+"Jetpacks" combo and centered around a concept of flanking/movement utility.
- Infiltrators have been redesigned to group 2 roles (infiltration or sniping) into one class. In PS1 equivalence, it's Infiltration Suit+Adv.Hacking/standard with bad cloak+Sniping.
- MAX will keep their role of "facility assault-tanks" or Interlink party crashers.

I wonder if PS1 implants have been redistributed between classes.
e.g.
Advanced targeting > Infiltrators
Audio Amp > Engineers
Darklight > (on weapons for the 4 Medium Assault classes)
Regen > (Light Assault?)
Melee booster > Infiltrators
Personal Shield > Heavy Assault
Range Magnifier > (I assume it will be on weapons)
Second Wind > (Medics?)
Silent Run > Infiltrators
Surge > (Light Assault? As a MAX-autorun?)

[Sledgecrushr]

I want my Max to have a giant power fist, so I can punch giant holes in people...http://bestgamewallpapers.com/warham...ine/power-fist

[headcrab13]

Hoping my MAX will be a walking tank when my tank cooldown isn't up yet.