Could BFRs work better with the new resource system?

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Then what is being said? That we don't need a skyguard because we already have MAXs? Then why where Skyguards in PS1?

Eugh, I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this.

The Skyguard's role in PS1 was vehicle-based AA and it accompanied the tanks, sunderers, etc as vehicle-based Anti-Air. Pretty obvious. It was very fast but countered by being very fragile. An AA MAX could not keep up with the vehicle advance, nor could it escort tanks or other ground forces. One was essentially an infantry-based counter to Aircraft that was effective but slow, the other was a vehicle based counter that can deploy rapidly and escort tanks.

The Skyguard's role in PS2 has been relegated to the Lightning primarily, being small, light, fast, and the best AA support. They combined the two roles. MBTs also have some AA they can use themselves but from what we've heard in the nanite vehicles webcast the Lightning will be the best at it and is the spiritual successor to the Skyguard.

And nobody is saying not to have new vehicles in the game, thats just ridiculous. They're saying not to have MECHS in the game, which is a specific type of vehicle which we have already established has no role that another vehicle can't do better. Except for the role of game-breaker, they definitely do that better than anything else.

Adding vehicle customization means we are going to have fewer vehicles because existing vehicles can be retooled for multiple roles. Like the Mosquito/wasp/reaver -> all one vehicle now with different configurations.

I like the idea of new vehicles. I like boats for continents that are designed for them. I liked the phantasm as a specialized small-scale deployment vehicle. I liked the flail as a tactical vehicle, though it could use a redesign, but it does have a distinct role of artillery. I liked buggies because they were fun and had effective weapon systems and rexo could drive them. Lots of ideas are around for vehicles. It's just mechs people dont like because we learned why they are terrible. And there's no reason to add them, as we've already established here. They serve no purpose other than as super vehicles.

[CutterJohn]

I agree BFRs shouldn't be in PS2. That is not my point. Read what I wrote.

If BFRs had been large tracked vehicles with exactly the same stats, we would not now be having this conversation.

If, in planetside 1, BFRs had not been large walking vehicles, but instead large tracked vehicles, and absolutely nothing else about them, not the weapons, the stats, the shield, the fact that one could fly, etc, was changed, they would have still been shitty overpowered vehicles. The only difference there would be is that in an argument about BFRs, everyone would agree that meant

'No shitty overpowered vehicles'

not

'No tracked vehicles of any kind.'

Originally Posted by Malorn

And nobody is saying not to have new vehicles in the game, thats just ridiculous. They're saying not to have MECHS in the game, which is a specific type of vehicle which we have already established has no role that another vehicle can't do better. Except for the role of game-breaker, they definitely do that better than anything else.

If you want to bring RL into this, then we have to get rid of the magic vanu hover vehicles as well, since they are physically impossible. If you're not bring RL into this, then there is only one role its not as good at, that of giving cover to infantry, because everything else is arbitrary and can be compensated for. Which does not make them automatically OP, or even particularly difficult to balance.

But you're right when you say this is a waste of time. Its a shame the PS1 devs ruined this for everyone. Just as much of a shame that after 8 years you people are still blaming the design rather than the implementation.

[Mackenz]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I agree BFRs shouldn't be in PS2. That is not my point. Read what I wrote.

If, in planetside 1, BFRs had not been large walking vehicles, but instead large tracked vehicles, and absolutely nothing else about them, not the weapons, the stats, the shield, the fact that one could fly, etc, was changed, they would have still been shitty overpowered vehicles. The only difference there would be is that in an argument about BFRs, everyone would agree that meant

'No shitty overpowered vehicles'

not

'No tracked vehicles of any kind.'

No. It would of been, and continues to be:

"No stuff put in that you haven't figured why you are putting it in apart from being 'cool'"

[Numberthirteen]

Like many of the guys here, I played PS1 for 7+ years before and after BFRs. I agree they helped ruin the game because the weak players used them to fight individual "grunts" as much as they fought armor. It gave the less experienced players an advantage once they learned to move the beasts so they could run and hide.

If there's a vote, please add me to the no to additional special "mechs" (or BFRs) except the MAX. That's why the GODS of PS made tanks and vehicles and aircav -- use them.

Not Big F***ing Robots.

[Numberthirteen]

Originally Posted by EZShot

This thread is a minefield.
Admit it guys, when you heard they were gonna put "Walking Robots" in to PS1 there was a little excitment wasn't there? If for no other reason than that they were adding more content?

Wow. No, I don't believe there was from the diehards-- there was from the players who were there and gone within a year-or-two, but not for most of the long-term players.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Mackenz

No. It would of been, and continues to be:

"No stuff put in that you haven't figured why you are putting it in apart from being 'cool'"

Patently false, since people don't want mechs. At all. Even if it can have a valid role. Which would be easy to find by substituting it for something else.

[Malorn]

Cutter that is because Mechs only have one role - supervehicles.

If you can come up with a significant role that they can fill that another vehicle doesn't already or conceivably could fulfill better, then by all means share.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Cutter that is because Mechs only have one role - supervehicles.

If you can come up with a significant role that they can fill that another vehicle doesn't already or conceivably could fulfill better, then by all means share.

I already gave 3 examples of different roles they could fill, which you shot down, despite the fact that they could easily be valid.

AA vehicle like skyguard. You said MAXs exist. But of course so do lightnings. Since the method of mobility makes little sense, having both MAXs and lightnings is superfluous, per your logic.

Extreme terrain vehicle. You shot it down again, since air cover that better. Cept air covers all ground better, so why bother with any ground vehicles?

Long range fire support. Relatively slow, glass cannon, but packs a hell of a punch. Apparently this can't exist because tanks kinda do this too, ignoring the fact that it could do it better, with the obvious limitation that its easy to kill.

They could do any role at all that does not rely on giving cover to infantry around its legs. Not a big limitation. Nobody brings that up when discussing the ATVs.

[ShockFC]

This community does it again!

Hamma if you ever wondered what I was talking about in my PMs to you, this is it.

[Hamma]

Thanks Shock.

I will change the forum rules to note that people should not have their own opinions.

[Mackenz]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Patently false, since people don't want mechs. At all. Even if it can have a valid role. Which would be easy to find by substituting it for something else.

And this right here is the nub of the issue. Yes, mechs can find a role since it "would be easy to find by substituting it for something else".

What we have therefore is tanks and aircav replaced with mechs (in some cases, in some undefined way). So some kind of Mechwarrior with infantry motif, with infantry taking a lesser role even with some finagling (as Malorn pointed out why they cannot actively support the mechs in battle).

Look, that is fine as your opinion - that is what you want the game to be. I personally don't, which is also fine since that is my opinion.

Just don't try to sell me the mech idea as an addition when really its a Trojan Horse to get other vehicles and aircraft replaced.

[Mackenz]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Thanks Shock.

I will change the forum rules to note that people should not have their own opinions.

Yikes I just got banned twice since I mentioned the O-word in that previous post!

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I will change the forum rules to note that people should not have their own opinions.

lol

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I already gave 3 examples of different roles they could fill, which you shot down, despite the fact that they could easily be valid.

AA vehicle like skyguard. You said MAXs exist. But of course so do lightnings. Since the method of mobility makes little sense, having both MAXs and lightnings is superfluous, per your logic.

Extreme terrain vehicle. You shot it down again, since air cover that better. Cept air covers all ground better, so why bother with any ground vehicles?

Long range fire support. Relatively slow, glass cannon, but packs a hell of a punch. Apparently this can't exist because tanks kinda do this too, ignoring the fact that it could do it better, with the obvious limitation that its easy to kill.

They could do any role at all that does not rely on giving cover to infantry around its legs. Not a big limitation. Nobody brings that up when discussing the ATVs.

Sure, mechs could half-ass an role that other vehicles could do better. I concede that. Why would you want a mech over a skyguard? The skyguard is faster, better able to avoid enemy fire, and has a low profile making it less of a target.

It still boils down to mechs are a poor choice for anything other than a super vehicle. Their only value-add is "coolness."

Why risk PS2 balance for that? It makes no sense to me. New vehicles are fine - those vehicles do not have to be mechs. They should make sense for the role they are filling not be thrown in because someone was high and thought they'd be cool.

[nadir]

There were 2 great exoduses from PS1 and the were all nubcake based rants. the first was surgile. Pop took a fairly substantial hit. People that kept getting worked complained enough the Devs took pity. Then the BFR/Mech crowd started wanting to incorporate Mechwarrior and the Devs were forced to put them into the game there by reducing the subs even more. Like surgile, when methods were found out how to combat BFRs effectively (hotswapping), the BFR crowd complained and got that nerfed as well.

So you what you have now are people that played during beta and release that now the game and what was intended versus the people that show up after 3 years and think they know the game better than the folks that had been playing from the start. The majority of the player base ended up being pretty thick in the head and hence the slow dismantling of the game. Add in horrible outfits that though they were good and PS1, in the later years, turned into one giant shit sandwich. Now the same people are determined to to the same thing to PS2 without even playing it yet.

[Skittles]

This thread delivers nothing but win.



And poops lollipops, unicorns and the awesome smell of fresh baked bread.