New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

Well PS2 is steering away from team based action sadly if you havent noticed the redo of vehicle design into a more rambo/solo style rather than teamwork based.

You're skewing the change into something it's not. The PS2 system is going into a more infantry centric direction where players work together using vehicles in groups rather than forced teamwork. This direction is more interesting for players since it gives all players a combat role and their own vehicle to control and upgrade. The goal is to balance these vehicles so they can work together. This is one thing I've done with my mech idea to keep a balanced maneuverable ground vehicle with a low top speed.

Originally Posted by Traak

stuck thinking about PS1

That kind of discussion is only useful for finding out what not to do which is pretty evident in this thread. A lot of people have already brought up those points as things they didn't want to see in very constructive arguments.

Originally Posted by morf

We already have single person bipedal mechs. They're called MAX UNITS.

It sounds like you want something similar only with like 5x as much ownsauce. It's not needed. It's not going to happen. MAX is a good single player mech implementation. Tougher than a soldier, but lacks versatility and can't be deployed from just anywhere. That's about as good as a mech should be.

You didn't even read the thread. What I described isn't anything like you described. The MAX topic has already been discussed. If you can't tell the difference between a MAX unit and a Mech then you have some serious logical deficiencies, and it's going to be hard to have a meaningful conversation with you.

Originally Posted by Hamma

I don't care about them because Smed already said they wouldn't be in, no point arguing about them in a 900 page thread.

T-Ray still wants them, and I'm confident in his ability to make change. (That and he sounded like he'd like to model them and bring them into the new PS2 style).

Also I've yet to see a solid argument against this thread. The only legit argument has been that a person doesn't like the chassis design. Other than that it's been a spew of irrational, as Vancha put it, comments. This community can do better than that.

[DviddLeff]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Stop trying to balance them as an alternative to a tank. Trying to get rid of those kinds of Power Ranger ideas.

Why are they not an alternate vehicle to a tank? They fill a similar role; that of fire support, just walk instead of roll. To balance their slower movement compared to the Lightning you and I both suggest they have more armour than it.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Why are they not an alternate vehicle to a tank? They fill a similar role; that of fire support, just walk instead of roll. To balance their slower movement compared to the Lightning you and I both suggest they have more armour than it.

Yes, but the armor is separated across components that can be individually damaged. The armor isn't designed to make the vehicle more powerful. It's just designed to keep the components alive longer. To put this into perspective it took 4 shots from a vanguard to destroy a lightning. On a vehicle that can strafe and dodge long range rounds 8 shots sounds like a good number. You might take 2 hits to destroy a weapon for instance. Again as I mentioned before turning the mech chassis to take hits on less needed components would then be a strategy. Getting hit in the back once might disable the momentary shield upgrade.

So it's not making them equal to a tank. The armor is just to make their larger target less of a disadvantage. Basically it would take a mech a while using AV machine guns to destroy a tank. (Hit and run attacks from afar to protect their components). While if a tank got a jump on a mech it would be a relatively "easy" kill. I guess I could see them as being an alternative in a way, but not in the sense that they'd be firing hard hitting AV rounds. Their DPS would be much lower. They lack a secondary gunner so a tank would tend to have a lot more fire power with one and less weaknesses with a gunner. For instance a Reaver dropping on a mech would be gamer over possibly while a tank would walk it off with its higher armor and possibly second gunner.

[DviddLeff]

So the main features are:
1. Able to negotiate dense and uneven terrain
2. Able to mitigate damage by presenting different components to the enemy.

[SgtMAD]

if you haven't figured it out yet, 75% of the ppl responding to this thread voted no.
we don't care if you gave these POS's tissue armor and made them BEP fountains when you killed one, we don't want anything even resembling a BFR in PS2.

why anyone would want to revisit the one thing that literally drove thousands of ppl to leave PS in the matter of a couple of weeks,it killed the game back then and no one wants to see that crap ever again.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

So the main features are:
1. Able to negotiate dense and uneven terrain
2. Able to mitigate damage by presenting different components to the enemy.

That would depend on balance. I mean the VS Magrider is hovering. There's no real reason it can't go over terrain a Prowler or Vanguard can't. If it makes sense then the mech could traverse steeper inclines. Then again I'd prefer a momentary vertical jet as an upgrade for getting on top of difficult to reach terrain. That would give players more choices when upgrading.

About mitigating damage that's more of a side effect. A tank and other vehicles will have the same options. (Driving backwards so you don't get shot on the weaker armor in the back if they have weaker armor like that).

I'd say the big thing would be strafing and easy maneuverability in forests and other terrain and the ability to dodge normal dumb fired weapons.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

if you haven't figured it out yet, 75% of the ppl responding to this thread voted no.

I understand that some people, like yourself, don't like mechs, and I've acknowledged that. I personally like Mad Cat designed mechs and think they'd be an excellent addition to the vehicles in PS2. I'm pretty sure the people against having mechs could deal with it if they were added.

[SgtMAD]

why in the hell does everyone else have to put up with something that pretty much only you want?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

why in the hell does everyone else have to put up with something that pretty much only you want?

I'd like to believe I'm not the only one that likes the idea of mechs in PS2. What I meant was the people that are against it, like yourself, are overreacting toward a chassis design and thus would probably change their minds easily given a successful implementation.

Actually, I haven't asked. What's your grudge against mechs? Just the bipedal design? Do you like any mech design? Or are your problems more rooted into hypothetical balance issues? Or role overlap issues?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

why are you feeding this BFR troll,if everyone ignored this, it would fade away and we could go back to arguing about something else we know nothing about.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

why in the hell does everyone else have to put up with something that pretty much only you want?

You were right the first time. You should take your own advice.

[Mastachief]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I'd like to believe I'm not the only one that likes the idea of mechs in PS2. What I meant was the people that are against it, like yourself, are overreacting toward a chassis design and thus would probably change their minds easily given a successful implementation.

Actually, I haven't asked. What's your grudge against mechs? Just the bipedal design? Do you like any mech design? Or are your problems more rooted into hypothetical balance issues? Or role overlap issues?

Give it a rest already we have voiced our concerns, you just keep going around in circles.

Balance or not they do not belong in this game.

[Sirisian]

Can you guys refrain from off-topic posts or use PMs. They're kind of distracting and just bump the thread for no reason.</ironic>

Originally Posted by Mastachief

Give it a rest already we have voiced our concerns, you just keep going around in circles.

Speak for yourself. You've added nothing of value to this thread since you started posting other than to try to de-rail it.

Originally Posted by Mastachief

Balance or not they do not belong in this game.

Because you don't like the mech chassis. I got that already.

Originally Posted by Raymac

You were right the first time. You should take your own advice.

Don't feed the trolls. He's just trying to de-rail the thread.

[PrISM]

You're not going to get any support for mechs in Planetside. Your fighting an uphill battle from the stigma of BFRs, even if your ideas are different than what they are.

Personally I see no need for them in the game.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Traak

Tanks don't generally have the capability to climb 60 degree hills, and fly 600 yards backwards and 500 yards upwards suddenly to escape enemy fire. The issue wasn't what BFR's were, it was what they could do.

If we had infantry that could do that, after taking massive damage and surviving, while only having to crouch to renew a shield that was impenetrable to 150mm tank rounds, but vulnerable to pistols only, we wouldn't like them either.

You wouldn't like them, but you wouldn't say no infantry because ps1 had implemented it badly. You'd want balanced infantry.

The walking animation was purely graphical. It enabled none of those things. Those imbalances were allowed because the vehicle was programmed to do that. BFRs could have just been Big Frickin' Rocks, had the graphics of a large rock, and performed exactly the same.

Graphics have absolutely nothing to do with balance, aside from hitbox size/shape.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

if you haven't figured it out yet, 75% of the ppl responding to this thread voted no.

And if you haven't figured out yet, this feeling is completely irrational.

why anyone would want to revisit the one thing that literally drove thousands of ppl to leave PS in the matter of a couple of weeks,it killed the game back then and no one wants to see that crap ever again.

Because poor balance decisions do not invalidate a graphical style. Once again. Graphics are not balance. The two things have nothing to do with each other. There could have been an OS Beamer in PS1 that banned anyone it killed. If this had existed, it would not invalidate the concept of pistols. It invalidates the concept of stupidly overpowered weapons.

You don't want OP crap. Mechs have nothing to do with that. Zero. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever. The BFR design was a design decision, reached by artists. The BFR imbalance was a balance decision, created by another set of people entirely.

Originally Posted by PrISM

Personally I see no need for them in the game.

Nor do I tbh. I can take em or leave em. I just really loathe the abhorrent logic seen in this thread.

[Xyntech]

We have been told that BFR's will not be in PS2 at launch.

We also know that some of the developers have expressed interest in revisiting mechs but done differently than the failure that was BFR's.

There is no real good reason why mechs are needed in the game, nor is there a good reason why they shouldn't be in the game.

If the developers want to make another stab at it and get it right this time, sounds good to me. If they did include them, I would like to see mechs and MAX suits act as bridges between infantry and vehicles. The MAX suit would be closer to infantry while sharing some of the characteristics of a vehicle, while the mech would be closer to a vehicle while sharing some of the characteristics of infantry.

A mech as a replacement for a heavy battle tank is just a bad idea. A mech as a versatile light armor unit sounds much easier to balance.

I don't really want to see mechs in the game, just because of how crazy the community gets around the subject, but maybe once there are a lot of new players in PS2, it would be a less toxic reaction. Time will tell. They may decide there are a lot of better ideas than mechs to make, like naval combat, so the topic may never even become an issue.

[Captain B]

I highly doubt naval combat will be implemented. With air and hover vehicles (VS) and the devs' lack of desire to put indirect fire (or at least limit it substantially) in PS2, there would be no point in speccing out naval combat - something that might not even be all that useful on many continents. The only thing I could imagine would be if it was like a moving fortress you had to defend, like a minigame of sorts, to get high resources. So you had to keep it repaired, man the turrets, provide air support, and so on (which could be really fun - like water towers!). Anything else just won't work with the primary focus on land, in bases, and in air.

Also, mechs wouldn't be able to enter bases or towers, and wouldn't exactly have the same "oomph" that tanks do, nor the top speeds. It'd be good for those areas like canyons and mountains where guerilla fighting and ambushes take place and tanks are sitting ducks, where they could provide some armor to the infantry footslogging it up the passes. At the same time, they would be extremely vulnerable in open field combat. I don't think they should even have epic weapons - mostly anti-infantry or maybe some AV/AA support - but they would fill a gap, as others have said, between MAX and vehicle.

MAXes in the open seem to get pounded into the dust as easily as any other infantry by air and armor, whereas the mech could still have some maneuverability (crouching, strafing) that vehicles don't have in areas where speed isn't as important, nor is having higher armor (that a tank would undoubtedly have).