New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I see no role for treads. They do nothing wheels can't do.

P=F/A i taught that to 13 year olds last week, they seemed to work out why treads exist

on a similar note i wonder how fat you'd have to make a mechs feet for it not to sink

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Mechs aren't in at launch. Confirmed. However, mechs are still a possibility at some point in Planetside 2's future.

No repeats of PS1's failures, thanks. Game will be perfectly great without mechs. Unnecessary. Dumb. Fail.


Reliability is important, so is resiliency. Mechs fail for both due to having large surface area and a lot of moving parts. A tank has a small surface area allowing thick armor and protection to its vulnerable parts. A mech cannot have such things and realistically just about any damage to any part of its legs, waist, and torso will lead to disabling it. It is also a higher, easier target while tanks keep a low profile and can be easily hidden. One hit and a mech will be disabled while a tank is much less likely to be hit and more likely to survive it due to thicker armor, smaller frame, and surfaces that will help deflect. And BFRs had the same issues - huge frame, easy targets. To make them not entirely suck they had to add that shield crap. Without the shields BFRs would have been easily destroyed, just like a real mech would have.

Giant robots are cool for kids. But they aren't practical in the real world. Never have been. Never will be. PS2 is a fantasy world but lets keep it plausible. If you want giant anime robots there's plenty of places you can go for that. Don't ruin PS2 with that crap.

MAX units are practical and provide additional protection in a small size and allow infantry-sized deployment of heavy weapons platforms that a normal human can't carry. Basically MAX are small indoor tanks or the future of squad-level heavy weapons teams. Making them bigger negates the purpose and exacerbates the mech issues. They're the perfect size and have an important role and the closest thing we should ever get to "mechs" in planetside 2.

Most people get this. Shame for a few idiots to ruin it for the rest of the planetside community.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Maybe we should shelve this until after launch, or at least until beta arrives. Then we can see what the game play in PS2 is like and whether or not there is a valuable role that some certain type of mech could fill.

I'd like to +1 this. If the game launches and it turns out that there's some role where feet would be indispensable then the matter can be re-opened, but until then it's just trying to build something from the sky down and that doesn't tend to work well.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Redshift

P=F/A i taught that to 13 year olds last week, they seemed to work out why treads exist

on a similar note i wonder how fat you'd have to make a mechs feet for it not to sink

Last I checked they weren't bothering checking that in the game, so treads are unnecessary eye candy. nothing else.

And 1 square foot per 2 tons would keep it around 30 psi ground pressure, same as the average horse.

Originally Posted by Malorn

No repeats of PS1's failures, thanks. Game will be perfectly great without mechs. Unnecessary. Dumb. Fail.

Great. Can we ditch all the other failures too?

Reliability is important, so is resiliency. Mechs fail for both due to having large surface area and a lot of moving parts. A tank has a small surface area allowing thick armor and protection to its vulnerable parts. A mech cannot have such things and realistically just about any damage to any part of its legs, waist, and torso will lead to disabling it. It is also a higher, easier target while tanks keep a low profile and can be easily hidden. One hit and a mech will be disabled while a tank is much less likely to be hit and more likely to survive it due to thicker armor, smaller frame, and surfaces that will help deflect. And BFRs had the same issues - huge frame, easy targets. To make them not entirely suck they had to add that shield crap. Without the shields BFRs would have been easily destroyed, just like a real mech would have.

Comparing a vehicle with one role to a vehicle with another, and using that as evidence of it sucking. Dumb. Fail. You know what else sucks as a tank? Everything that is not a tank.

Giant robots are cool for kids. But they aren't practical in the real world. Never have been. Never will be. PS2 is a fantasy world but lets keep it plausible. If you want giant anime robots there's plenty of places you can go for that. Don't ruin PS2 with that crap.

Railguns, plasma guns, miniguns a soldier carries around, shotguns issued as an empires best weapon, tanks that shoot mortars instead of real cannon, etc, etc, etc, are cool for kids. But they aren't practical in the real world. PS2 is a fantasy world, but lets keep it plausible.

MAX units are practical and provide additional protection in a small size and allow infantry-sized deployment of heavy weapons platforms that a normal human can't carry. Basically MAX are small indoor tanks or the future of squad-level heavy weapons teams. Making them bigger negates the purpose and exacerbates the mech issues. They're the perfect size and have an important role and the closest thing we should ever get to "mechs" in planetside 2.

Max is a dumb design. Traded mobility for armor, for some reason was made incapable of taking care of itself or doing anything other than shoot.

Most people get this. Shame for a few idiots to ruin it for the rest of the planetside community.

I don't think you grasp the meaning of 'ruin'. "Shame for a few people with different tastes for fantasy sci fi to slightly annoy a majority, but definitely not all, of the community."

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

I'd like to +1 this. If the game launches and it turns out that there's some role where feet would be indispensable then the matter can be re-opened, but until then it's just trying to build something from the sky down and that doesn't tend to work well.

There is no role where feet are indispensable in a video game. All vehicles could be featureless blocks sliding along the ground with no graphical representation of what moves it and it would not affect gameplay one iota.



Just say you don't like it. It really is a lot easier than continually coming up with terrible logic.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Last I checked they weren't bothering checking that in the game, so treads are unnecessary eye candy. nothing else.

I heard we have physics in PS2, i imagine tracks will make a difference.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

And 1 square foot per 2 tons would keep it around 30 psi ground pressure, same as the average horse.

or a humvee pulling a wheely? you'd sink in mud easily, not sure there's many places legs would be advantageous

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

There is no role where feet are indispensable in a video game. All vehicles could be featureless blocks sliding along the ground with no graphical representation of what moves it and it would not affect gameplay one iota.

You seem to be going back on your own point here, if you're saying it doesn't matter how things are designed then why bother making something that takes extra time and money; looks out of place and has a huge stigma attached to it?

[SKYeXile]

How did i miss this thread...this is gold...somebody sum up pages 2-20 for me though.

[Traak]

Okay.

I want Mechs. Not BFR's.

No. We don't want them.

But, they could be balanced...

We don't want them anyway.

[2coolforu]

Mechs will never, ever exist in the military. Ever.

I'm sorry but it's a fact, I won't be alive long enough to prove it but a mech in the style of the ones that grace anime constantly just aren't practical for warfare. It's a simple matter of logic

Here's a mech
____
| |
| |
| |
|__|

Here's a vehicle

____________
|___________|

The vehicle presents one generic unit ^2 area to the enemy, the mech presents 4 generic area ^2 to the enemy. That's four times the area to armor which means your mech either has shitty armor compared to a tank or any other vehicle of the same class or it sinks into the ground and doesn't move. It's also far more complex to make a bipedal robot than a tracked/wheeled vehicle, it presents a taller target, legs are extremely large and obvious targets, if it loses power a bipedal robot would just fall over as two legs aren't really the best for stability.

A mech would be a quadruped rather than bipedal simply for stability which would make it even more complex, it would also be unlikely for it to be used in a military application instead it would probably be used in industry, heavy lifting or exploration of dangerous areas (Other worlds?).

The point is every role a mech could take is filled with another vehicle that can do it far better and is less restricted by the laws of physics. Fast, maneuverable support? Getting areas tanks can't reach? A fricking attack helicopter does that better, can do it from farther away, can do it faster and can do it better. Supporting infantry in urban environments? Urban environments are where vehicles go to die, a mech would fair even less well as it would have to be underarmored due to the greater surface area, if it was a bipedal mech it would also be underpowered due to the increased recoil from the poor centre of gravity and larger moment of force around it, it's also a role that can be filled by the IFV which can also carry the infantry and travel extremely quickly with wheels or tracks.

As for huge mechs meant to be 'supertanks' the arguments have already been made, the machinery would be horrendous (huge amounts of pressure acting totally through the bipedal legs/quadrupedal legs), terrible ground pressure, huge target and poor armor compared to a tank that did the same job. If Military History has taught us anything it's that relying on 'Mothership' style ridiculously giant death units is a terrible idea, it's a lot easier to blow something up than it is to armor it up. The thousand-dollar body armor the best equipped troops in the world have can be defeated by some muppet with a $5 somalian AK-47, the Battleship was retired because it was this huge, expensive power statement that could be taken out by a single cruise missile or even a lucky torpedo.

The only mechs we will likely see are exo-suits for the common infantry. This is because they scale pretty well to small sizes however anything large enough to be classed as an IFV/Tank just loses out to increase in surface area and other drawbacks. We are already seeing strength-augmenting exo-suits in creation, and they are in Planetside in the form of the common infantryman and MAX suit.

I don't care whether or not they get put into Planetside 2, I know a lot of people like the aesthetic of mech units. Personally I think they look retarded but that's just me, if it makes a larger % happier than it does make a % upset then throw them in. But the problem is the role people typically see mechs occupy leads them to being overpowered, they are generally just scaled up infantry given the power of a tank which is the ultimate recipe for OP and shitty gameplay. Seeing as the fanbase already harbors a bad taste from the BFR's it's probably best to leave them out.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Redshift

You seem to be going back on your own point here, if you're saying it doesn't matter how things are designed then why bother making something that takes extra time and money; looks out of place and has a huge stigma attached to it?

Indeed. Why bother with meshes and normal mapping and shaders. We could have box wireframes, and the gameplay would be exactly the same. Wheels cost extra time and money. Treads cost extra time and money. Hovering? Extra time and money. Animations? Extra time and money.

Time and money will be spent on making things look cool. Not everyone agrees that mechs are not cool. Anyone who thinks there is a 'stigma' against them is far too obsessed with BFRs.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Indeed. Why bother with meshes and normal mapping and shaders. We could have box wireframes, and the gameplay would be exactly the same. Wheels cost extra time and money. Treads cost extra time and money. Hovering? Extra time and money. Animations? Extra time and money.

Time and money will be spent on making things look cool. Not everyone agrees that mechs are not cool. Anyone who thinks there is a 'stigma' against them is far too obsessed with BFRs.

If you're going to be a prick there's no point in posting.

Mechs are harder to animate than tanks, tanks look exactly the same on a hill as they do on the flat. Mechs to be done properly need animated ankles and knees so they remain upright on uneven ground, if you don't bother you get them looking like the alphelion used to, i.e running up a hill bent over to 45 degrees.

Mechs require more time form an art team also since they have more surface area.

They're leaving out boarding animations because they don't want to spend the cash on animation and painting the insides of the vehicles. Why would they spend that cash they don't have on mechs which, have no defined role and a stigma attached?

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I see no role for treads. They do nothing wheels can't do.

Mud, slopes, traction.

EDIT: Effectively wheels are extremely good on pre-fab surfaces like Tarmac and compacted roads but suck in a Somme style warzone which is where tracks excel, I don't think a mech would do too well in a muddy, sloped field.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Redshift

I think the best argument is just to say they look rediculous, well they look rediculous unless you through tonnes of cash at them.
remember bfr's walking across uneven ground or up a hill? tall vehicles just look silly when they're spose to fall over but dont.

If your best argument is that SOE will screw up the physics like they did 7 years ago that's a big assumption.

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

I don't care whether or not they get put into Planetside 2, I know a lot of people like the aesthetic of mech units. Personally I think they look retarded but that's just me, if it makes a larger % happier than it does make a % upset then throw them in.

I'm not sure that's right. I'd always assumed more people hated the look of mechs than liked them. Can't really find anything to back up either opinion though.

Originally Posted by Redshift

Mechs are harder to animate than tanks, tanks look exactly the same on a hill as they do on the flat. Mechs to be done properly need animated ankles and knees so they remain upright on uneven ground, if you don't bother you get them looking like the alphelion used to, i.e running up a hill bent over to 45 degrees.

Mechs require more time form an art team also since they have more surface area.

Really didn't want to go into stuff like that. I've always found it a bit of a fool's argument to say the reason you don't want something is because it takes time. Anything added to the game takes time away from other things so it's a bit of a no-brainer if you don't like it then it's taking time away from something else you want.

Also a well animated tank has a tread with basic suspension physics. Personally I find it odd when a tank's treads don't line up with the terrain. The same would be true for a mech. (I try not to go into the technical details. I've programmed for a while so I know the basics of inverse kinematics so such a thing as aligning a mech's foot given constraints to terrain doesn't seem unreasonably difficult, but it does take time for a person that's never done it).

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

[debating realism arguments]

I don't think you need to go into those kinds of areas. It's a video game not an engineering simulation. I tend to ignore those arguments since they seem like the bottom of the bucket arguments. CutterJohn already killed that argument with the analogy to Lashers though.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Redshift

If you're going to be a prick there's no point in posting.

Mechs are harder to animate than tanks, tanks look exactly the same on a hill as they do on the flat. Mechs to be done properly need animated ankles and knees so they remain upright on uneven ground, if you don't bother you get them looking like the alphelion used to, i.e running up a hill bent over to 45 degrees.

Mechs require more time form an art team also since they have more surface area.

Depends on what technology they have implemented in the game engine. From looking at the screenshots, I think, but cannot say for certain, that infantry have inverse kinematics controlling their animations so that their feet plant firmly on the ground. There are no images of infantry on a heavy slope, so I cannot be sure. This is a common feature in games, and has been for years. I would not be surprised if the engine was capable of such.

If its not, or if their implementation is not easily converted to non human layouts(Given this engine was developed for a fantasy MMO, I doubt they would overlook this), you are correct that implementing it for one vehicle would be an absurd waste of time, and I would not want to see mechs with simple keyframed animations. Do it right or not at all.

They're leaving out boarding animations because they don't want to spend the cash on animation and painting the insides of the vehicles. Why would they spend that cash they don't have on mechs which, have no defined role and a stigma attached?

Obviously they won't. I just enjoy pointing out how absurd that stigma is.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

If your best argument is that SOE will screw up the physics like they did 7 years ago that's a big assumption.

Really didn't want to go into stuff like that. I've always found it a bit of a fool's argument to say the reason you don't want something is because it takes time. Anything added to the game takes time away from other things so it's a bit of a no-brainer if you don't like it then it's taking time away from something else you want.

It's not the physic i was on about it's the animation, if you don't animate them properly they look stupid, and you notice things like that more on tall vehices.

The reason i mentioned time and money is because these mechs as they've been suggested don't add anything to the game, they don't do anything that a tank can't, and since they serve no purpose adding them is wasting money, if SOE suddenly find themselves swimming in cash maybe they will add extra stuff thats not really needed but considering how many staff they've laid off recently i doubt they will.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Obviously they won't. I just enjoy pointing out how absurd that stigma is.

Stigma isn't suppose to be rational, thats why it's stigma, and not fact.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Redshift

Stigma isn't suppose to be rational, thats why it's stigma, and not fact.

I'm well aware. The mental gymnastics people are using as justification of their stigma are interesting.