Could BFRs work better with the new resource system? - Page 10

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

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.

Lol.. Yeah, I totally want to see every single vehicle replaced with a mech. Including aircav.

My point was just that you could replace pretty much any ground vehicle with a mech and they'd work just fine and nobody would care. Tbh, nobody would care if this wasn't called Planetside 2, either, since you couldn't mention BFRs. Not that you can really do so here, but at least if the title were different it would be immediately obvious how invalid the argument was. "This other game I played had mechs and they sucked" "This isn't that game..."

I really don't care much about mechs. I like them, i think they're cool, but it wouldn't bug me if none were in game. What bothers me is the kneejerk reaction against them as if they must, as a fundamental aspect of their design, be exactly as broken as BFRs and therefore can be dismissed out of hand. Its horrible, broken logic.

Hell, I'd be happy if people said 'I don't like the design, and think the style does not fit Planetside'. That is a valid argument, and could be discussed rationally.

Originally Posted by Malorn

The skyguard is faster

Only if made faster.

better able to avoid enemy fire,and has a low profile making it less of a target.

Bigger target, but can side strafe(legs, remember). Tradeoff.

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

Coolness dictates the presence of a great many silly things in planetside. Like handheld miniguns. If you really want to bring realism into the discussion, I can begin pointing out a great number of implausible and flat out physically impossible vehicles/weapons/technologies in the game.

Why risk PS2 balance for that?

It doesn't risk balance. Its a minor change. Yes, its a tall hitbox. That is not nearly as difficult to compensate for as you seem to think it is. I mean, look at the sunderer.

If the balance argument was valid, you'd be applying it to MAX units as well. Since they are taller and wider they cannot possibly be balanced, and as such must be removed.

Sirisian · 2012-03-16, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Bigger target, but can side strafe(legs, remember). Tradeoff.

Being able to aim down is also a big plus. A tank on a hill can't aim down without going over the edge. Same goes for a canyon cliff. A mech on the other hand usually has no problem with this and can use the hill or canyon wall tactically. Strafing is important since we have large trees again. Standing behind one would be nice. The bigger profile I don't think would be a problem. It wasn't one in PS1 really. I mean a phoenix would hit, a striker would lock, and a lancer would lance anything it could (or in some cases couldn't) see. The argument about surface area being a balance problem is a bit ridiculous. Especially if you assume a balanced vehicle size of 12 feet like I mentioned before.

I've been hesitating posting since it sounds like some people want to roll overlap a mech with a tank. That kind of design is a bit lame and thinking of a mech as a variant of a tank is uncreative.

Murph · 2012-03-16, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

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.'

Why the fuck would a tracked tank EVER fly? Also I'm not sure a tracked tank would shake the screen every step of the way, especially since it uses tracks and not big fucking feet.

You are a dumbass and all your arguments are null and void.

BTW dude is just trolling you guys at this point, I just wanted to post so I could add that picture

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Murph

Why the fuck would a tracked tank EVER fly? Also I'm not sure a tracked tank would shake the screen every step of the way, especially since it uses tracks and not big fucking feet.

Same reason a mech would fly. Idiocy. Or its made of aluminum and strapped to a glider as a failed experiment by the russians in ww2.

And you'll get no argument out of me that the screen shake was ridiculous.

Very nice pic, btw.

Fortress · 2012-03-16, 11:19 PM

I just...fucking...gfhrakhrahra

I swear this forum is deliberately trolling me.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Fortress

I just...fucking...gfhrakhrahra

I swear this forum is deliberately trolling me.

Believe me, I feel much the same.

Fortress · 2012-03-16, 11:24 PM

Dude, advocating BFR's around PS1 vets is like wearing a white cloak and pointed white cap to The Apollo Theater.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-17, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Fortress

Dude, advocating BFR's around PS1 vets is like wearing a white cloak and pointed white cap to The Apollo Theater.

I am a PS1 vet. I hated BFRs when they came out. I am able to recognize that the things that made them imbalanced had virtually nothing to do with their form.

Why can't you?

Sirisian · 2012-03-17, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I am a PS1 vet. I hated BFRs when they came out. I am able to recognize that the things that made them imbalanced had virtually nothing to do with their form.

Why can't you?

Exactly. Got the game in 2003 and saw all the balance changes over the years. I used BFRs before and after the nerf like most people here yet I recognize that they were a poor representation of what a mech should be in Planetside. It's sad that the designers knew how to design the TR and NC one visually and gave up on the VS one and made it a Gundam style humanoid mech. We're all well aware of the balance problems in the implementation that BFRs had going for overpowered instead of a general vehicle. That's why I usually advocate for a nanite systems mech and treating it like a lightning with AV arm guns and missile batteries akin to a single person aircraft on the ground. Balancing such a design doesn't take a genius.

RNFB · 2012-03-17, 12:42 AM

The VS BFR is much too round to be a gundam

**Malorn** · 2012-03-17, 12:44 AM

The form factor of the mechs is precisely the problem. I elaborated why earlier today in this thread. You can live in denial trying to ignore those points, thats your perogative, I wont repeat my already valid argument.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-17, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The form factor of the mechs is precisely the problem. I elaborated why earlier today in this thread. You can live in denial trying to ignore those points, thats your perogative, I wont repeat my already valid argument.

You claimed that form is the only factor at all, a patently ridiculous argument considering all the different stats you can use to balance things. Speed, hitpoints, weapons, maneuverability, etc.. all can be tweaked. Form is one single aspect.

If you were correct, then your argument would of necessity apply to every other vehicle too, and we could not have vehicles of different sizes, since size, according to you, is unbalanceable.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-17, 01:08 AM

Size and shape are important. Military prefers things that are not giant "shoot me" targets. Low profile, high power, low surface area. Those are good qualities.

Mechs are the anti-tank dogs of the 21st century.

Baron · 2012-03-17, 01:10 AM

BFR's

1) only needed crew of 1
2) configured with AV, AI, AA (or pick 2)
3) AV for the pilot worked great on most ANYTHING
4) most armor
5) most shields
6) flight <---- !!

All of that power and versatility for a 1 crew vehicle was what made BFRs completely ridiculous.

Talek Krell · 2012-03-17, 01:50 AM

The thread has been long and not especially productive. The answer to the original question was an obvious and already nicely delivered no, followed by 10 pages of what is largely baseless whining. I'm...summing up I guess? I think I'm a little loopy from the trip to the end of the thread.