Could BFRs work better with the new resource system?

[ShockFC]

Originally Posted by Vancha

This thread has happened before...Possibly twice. The first time produced the sixth largest thread in this forum. I think perhaps you posted in the wrong thread.

Also, both sides' voices have been the quieter at different points in this thread, so I don't even know which group you're taking about.

I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about the entire board. This is just the first thread I've seen where a LOT of opposing voices have spoken up.

[Tikuto]

Could BFRs work better with the new resource system?

Yes.
Providing BFRs are not out of control like in PS1.

[Skitrel]

I didn't say the community would react differently, you act as though that's just the PS community, no, it's gamers in general.

The difference lies with developers though, and their ability to decide whether what a community is asking for is the right decision for the game.

If the forums turn into Mordor Higby is already prepared, having showed a strong presence over on reddit for many months now, much more easily digested than the typical drivel that occurs on forums at least, undoubtedly when the game gets attention it'll cause forums to explode with even more idiots, regardless though, decisions always lie with developers.

What you're doing is passing the buck for the devs, in advance. The decision to make or break the game lies with them, not the community or discussion that occurs within the community. Do not blame the community for decisions the devs make. It is their game, not ours, they should make it theirs.

[Duddy]

As someone who hasn't commented so far may I just say;

I don't think either side really has much in the way of a justification.

Most of those against it seem to disregarding any ideas simply due to their prejudice to the original implementation. To make an analogy, they act like the people who denounce Nuclear power due to what happened at Fukushima.

Despite the fact it was mismanagement that caused the issue, people still relate their ill will to Nuclear power itself, which means they tend to glaze over any positive attributes. Much how people "hurt" by the poor implementation of BFRs by the PS1 team refuse to even acknowledge anything similar for PS2.

As for those for their implementation, it doesn't seem like many can realistically come up with a good reason for inclusion.

Without a solid reason, and I mean a gap it fills naturally rather than one created by players, then how can one possibly argue for their addition? Furthermore, if you wanted to identify a gap then you'd probably need to wait until the game was being played to find it. You can do all the theoretical talk but, as has been evidenced in previous games, unintentional/missing features will emerge through gameplay.

To conclude, neither side seems to have a solid reason for or against, nor do we have a meaningful way to asses validity either way. Perhaps you should just both disagree for now and agree to re-evaluate the situation once we have the game to actually assess the situation.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by Duddy

Most of those against it seem to disregarding any ideas simply due to their prejudice to the original implementation. To make an analogy, they act like the people who denounce Nuclear power due to what happened at Fukushima.

Just when you think this thread has hit rock bottom someone comes along and says something so ridiculous that it shocks you LOL

I would think that ppl here would get the point when the head of SOE gaming makes a point of saying that BFRs won't be in PS2, that alone should tell you that SOE even knows how bad they screwed up PS with their addition.

Smedly doesn't mention warping,surgile,hotdropping,door bugs,eq. term bug,lasher 2.0 or any of the hundreds of other things mentioned over the last 8 years as the reason PS died off but he makes a point of reassuring everyone involved that BFRS WON'T BE BACK,that should tell you right there that SOE has the data to drive them to make that statement.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

It was important because there's a clear hierarchy between armour, air, infantry. Though that splits further into large groups, land, air.

Since mechs would be land, the question is simple, is this job already performed by other land units.

If yes, answer = it's unnecessary.

If no. Then sure, that's a potential option.

This cuts the list down quite significantly.

No, the question is whether it's performed by other land units in the same way. An ATV's AV isn't the same as an MBT's AV, so they both have a place. I don't think any role I mentioned is covered entirely by what we know to be going into PS2.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Also, that's one hell of a slippery slope argument you're trying to use. Logical fallacy.

Oh, don't you break out the logical fallacies. This whole thread is an exercise in cum hoc ergo propter hoc (I always have to look that one up). I notice SgtMAD in particular is falling prey to this.

Which part did you consider a slippery slope?

Originally Posted by Duddy

Perhaps you should just both disagree for now and agree to re-evaluate the situation once we have the game to actually assess the situation.

Where'd be the fun in that?

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Oh, don't you break out the logical fallacies. This whole thread is an exercise in cum hoc ergo propter hoc (I always have to look that one up). I notice SgtMAD in particular is falling prey to this.

Correlation != causation is much easier to remember, and very explanatory for those that haven't heard of the term or point before, without having to google. It's the more sciencey way to put it, fuck yeah science.

which part did you consider a slippery slope

The part where you implied that because the argument that they shouldn't be in the game then therefore the others shouldn't be in the game.

Should we remove ATV's, MBTs' and Liberator's AV capabilities since Aircav's already got that covered?

You knew when you wrote this that it wasn't a suitable argument. I understand that it was more of a dramatic extreme to add a bit of emotional, no not emotional - artistic/dramatic power to your post, it's just necessary to point out that you and I both know it really isn't a suitable addition.

Other points made however, stand as quite relevant. Though I BELIEVE it is important for the game to tread the line of getting what it needs at the core right, balanced, correct, before moving on to expanding that core. I don't disagree that additions of new stuff should happen. I just think at this point it is better to focus on what is absolutely necessary and getting that right before then.

[Tatwi]

/thread?

[artifice]

Mechs are essentially more mobile tanks made to traverse harsher terrain. Their size is a disadvantage as they can more easily draw lots of fire. Just reduce the number that can be built by increasing their cost and I think they could be balanced.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

The part where you implied that because the argument that they shouldn't be in the game then therefore the others shouldn't be in the game.

You knew when you wrote this that it wasn't a suitable argument. I understand that it was more of a dramatic extreme to add a bit of emotional, no not emotional - artistic/dramatic power to your post, it's just necessary to point out that you and I both know it really isn't a suitable addition.

Well of course I wasn't proposing they remove them from the game. I was simply asking the question, to highlight the ridiculousness of suggesting that a role can only be filled once.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Other points made however, stand as quite relevant. Though I BELIEVE it is important for the game to tread the line of getting what it needs at the core right, balanced, correct, before moving on to expanding that core. I don't disagree that additions of new stuff should happen. I just think at this point it is better to focus on what is absolutely necessary and getting that right before then.

Like I said before, I wouldn't want to see mechs in anywhere near release. I just think the WH40k Sentinel-style of mech would be a good character on the battlefield (that's basically what I've had in mind while arguing for it). A more "realistic" or industrial style, as opposed to the humanoid BFRs and anime mecha.

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

Just when you think this thread has hit rock bottom someone comes along and says something so ridiculous that it shocks you LOL

Well if that shocks you then, good, you realise how ridiculous this thread has been. Because as someone who isn't on either side and has just been watching till now, that is what it seems like.

Besides that, if you were so sure they wouldn't be added in the first place, why argue with all these people about it?

The only reasons I can think of are;
- You want to bludgeon people to your way of thinking, showing a clear misunderstanding of the word "opinion"
- Egotistical posturing

Unless I'm mistaken and perhaps you might like to tell me why you did so otherwise?

[SgtMAD]

because i watched the same arguments years ago and I will be damn if I am going to go through that shit all over again.

[Tatwi]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

because i watched the same arguments years ago and I will be damn if I am going to go through that shit all over again.

In that case, the logical solution for you would have been to ignore the thread entirely. After all, it does have BFR clearly written in its title and you'll be damned if you're going to go through all that shit all over again.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by Tatwi

In that case, the logical solution for you would have been to ignore the thread entirely. After all, it does have BFR clearly written in its title and you'll be damned if you're going to go through all that shit all over again.

That's the whole reason why I only have 1 two sentence reply!

Except for this one...

[Mackenz]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I hope you're not arguing that we should never add anymore vehicles because the current ones already can be customized for every possible gameplay situation. I already said a tank, fury, lightning probably can't aim down. This is a problem on canyon walls and other terrain which did not really exist in PS1. These types of terrain features really open up the room for a mech chassis to be a customizable platform for these regions.

Among the reason to add variety toward maneuverability. Treaded vehicles and wheeled vehicles do not function at all like a mech does making it unique as a platform.

This is the closest to a role that has been put forward so far. It is very situational, but even so.

The question is, why would I stand in a 12 foot high mech on the side of a cliff when an 7 foot MAX would do the same job for less resources?

And yes, a MAX has 'legs' so it gets all the terrain crossing benefit.

What you are talking about in mech form is a super MAX (MAX^2? or SMAX ha I like the latter name - as one commentator earlier noted about me, it may remind me of when I was touched as a child).

So - we are not talking about something more powerful than tanks (or kind) - that seems to have been agreed upon leads to PS1 land. So now its lesser than tanks (or kind) but larger than MAXes which also have legs and get terrain benefit.

Discuss why what in reality is SMAX should be put in the game, given it is ~2x the size of a regular MAX.

Oh, and saying a SMAX is not a vehicle is a semantic dodge.

And saying it doesn't look like your concept of a mech is fine, but given this is sci-fi, it doesn't have to look like anything you can conceive of right?

TL;DR
Finally (sorry for taking so long), the conclusion - if the look of a PS2 MAX was the same as your concept for a mech, except ~7 foot high vs. 12 foot high, you would be happy, right?