Could BFRs work better with the new resource system? - Page 22

Sholokov · 2012-03-20, 03:11 AM

Actually as a Battletech nut i will say the MAX has always felt like the Battlearmor from that series. However i will say that I think the game can do without BFRs, as I recall the game was much better before and honestly it is a fairly niche crowed that really wants them in, so why risk losing player base because the minority wants them.

Now I do agree it could be done in a way to where they are balanced unlike how they were upon their release, but the question then becomes is it worth it to alienate the veteran crowed? Particulary those players who Unsubbed because of BFRs being added in the first rendition? The answer would definitely be no, from a business standpoint it doesnt make sense, yes i know that it will be free to play, but there is still the potential for lost revenue regardless if they were to bring them back.

In short, I can live without my beloved mechs (lets face it the art direction of BFRs sucked anyways) so long as we can maintain the glory that was combat in the original Planetside.

Straws · 2012-03-20, 03:13 AM

If mechs are to work in a game like Planetside, they needed to implimented as the theme of one of the factions (i.e one empire is traditional vehicles, another is hover, the other is mechs, ala Earth 2150), and in order to make it work for an existing faction, it had to be done in PS1 before release. The devs can't get away with suddenly making the NC the 'Mech Empire'.

However, as a reminder the biggest issue with BFRs in PS1 wasn't that they were mechs (although there are many mechaphobes out there). At the end of the day, that's just an appearance and has no really gameplay mechanics applied to it by design. The issue was the fact that they were a 1 man tank soloing machine. It had a major negative affect of tactical gameplay, and pretty much all down to it's 1-2 player set up. Coupled with it's existance limit being that of the number of players that were available, it frustratingly appealed to players that only played for their K/D ratio, which is the exact opposite of the spirit of PS1.

Fenrys · 2012-03-20, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Straws

It had a major negative affect of tactical gameplay, and pretty much all down to it's 1-2 player set up.

That's not the reason I don't like PS1 BFR's.

They slowed down the game, and made front lines static. Apparently that was their intended purpose, and the plan went horribly right. With just tanks, the battle was fluid and you had to be aware of where you were and where your friends were, and actually think about and predict what the battlefield would look like in the near future.

BFR's made the game a bit mindless and boring.

I think a bipedal vehicle that's weaker than a tank would not cause the same problems.

Kran De Loy · 2012-03-20, 04:05 AM

This thread:

So appropriate.

Raymac · 2012-03-20, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by HitbackTR

The flavour of the month argument seems to be "yes BFR's in PS1 were implemented poorly so PS2 is a chance to correctly implement them" doesn't wash with me and your logic/argument/whatever is flawed if you try and see otherwise. thankfully PS2 devs concur with this, the question is whether they will essentially permanently 'honor' their decision to not have BFR's in PS2.

There is a flip side to that coin though. Just because something was flawed in PS1 doesn't preclude its failure in PS2. Blindly saying that mechs in any form are impossible for Planetside is pretty short sighted.

Also, I think you are mistaken that the "devs concur" with you. T-Ray, for example, has said from the beginning that BFR's have a chance someday, that with the lessons learned they can be done right. It's not fair to put words in the devs mouths and hold them to some promise they never made. They have said that BFRs won't be in at launch, not that they will NEVER be in the game. Just like Hamma's boy toy Justin Bieber says, "never say never".

Atheosim · 2012-03-20, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by Raymac

There is a flip side to that coin though. Just because something was flawed in PS1 doesn't preclude its failure in PS2. Blindly saying that mechs in any form are impossible for Planetside is pretty short sighted.

Also, I think you are mistaken that the "devs concur" with you. T-Ray, for example, has said from the beginning that BFR's have a chance someday, that with the lessons learned they can be done right. It's not fair to put words in the devs mouths and hold them to some promise they never made. They have said that BFRs won't be in at launch, not that they will NEVER be in the game. Just like Hamma's boy toy Justin Bieber says, "never say never".

+1

Mechs aren't defined by being overpowered. The only valid argument against them is that they will take up development time, which once the game is stable will not be that much of a problem.

Skitrel · 2012-03-20, 04:47 AM

None of this matters. It's never going to happen. Ever. SOE will never take the risk. To think otherwise is utterly stupid. With a community so split on the issue there's absolutely zero chance they would take the risk of the mass walkout that occurred with BFRs in PS1. It would be a ludicrous business decision.

End of story.

Atheosim · 2012-03-20, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

None of this matters. It's never going to happen. Ever. SOE will never take the risk. To think otherwise is utterly stupid. With a community so split on the issue there's absolutely zero chance they would take the risk of the mass walkout that occurred with BFRs in PS1. It would be a ludicrous business decision.

End of story.

Mass walkout? So the PS2 playerbase will be composed entirely of the PS1 playerbase?

Moreover, there's zero chance that they'll listen to what the community wants out of a mech? Yeah, the Ps2 devteam has a horrible track record with that.

Yet further over, the PS2 player base a year after Ps2 launch will probably be enthused to help build a new unit, mech or not. If it turns out to be a mech (likely considering coolness factor), nuts to you?

**Malorn** · 2012-03-20, 04:56 AM

Vancha · 2012-03-20, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

And this is why such discussions are always unproductive. People ask "why" and the mech/bfr proponents just deflect the question by nitpicking some insignificant detail and then posting some exaggerated meaningless drivel.

Well I'm honestly getting a bit tired of saying the same things over and over. It's that the "why nots" are all so terrible that keeps me arguing about this (in real life, they wouldn't be cost effective!)

Until we get to play it, we don't know that anything is needed. We don't know that a single idea in the ideas forum would be a good fit for the game. If there happens to be roles that are unfilled (and I'd say that's likely), then there's your opportunity for a new vehicle. Sure, there are probably roles that could be given to existent vehicles, but I think there'll probably be a saturation point, beyond which a single vehicle will be able to do too much, where the certification UI will be too cluttered, where the training time for that vehicle reaches silly levels.

So then the question is, what kind of vehicle? Well, I'd rather see bikes, buggies, mechs, ships or airships before we saw another plane, another tank or another truck, simply to make the shapes on the battlefield more interesting.

Bikes would be hard to fit into Planetside's aesthetic without simply becoming another ATV. The naval thing will take a lot of work. Airships would need huge reimagining to fit Planetside...That leaves buggies and mechs, both of which can take varied forms, both of which can be given a huge range of aesthetics to fit what's already in the game, so I'd like to see them both eventually.

The only valid criticism against them so far is their height disadvantage, though it's certainly not a make or break thing.

So that's why. Because there will eventually be room for new vehicles and they'd be more far more interesting than yet another tank/plane, which so far outweighs every feeble argument that the mech-phobic have thrown against them.

Now maybe you just love tanks, or love planes and can't get enough of them, so you'd rather see a constant flow of new tanks for you to drool over and that's fine, but that falls within the confines of personal preference, as diversity is mine.

Atheosim · 2012-03-20, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

...

Your signature is profoundly apropos, Malorn, but I'm sure your ability to realize it has been robbed by your incompetence.

Kran De Loy · 2012-03-20, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

+1

Mechs aren't defined by being overpowered. The only valid argument against them is that they will take up development time, which once the game is stable will not be that much of a problem.

Development time a lot of us would rather see other stuff first, but in the end it's up to the Devs what they actually work on.

Edit: Hmm thinking about it, Naval content and Mecha are pretty much on two completely different scales. So everything I just typed up is just irrelevant to this discussion. Oh well, I love the idea of Naval Content so I'll leave it up.

Originally Posted by Myself

As an example,

As more of an Expansion idea, I'd really like to see that idea of Naval battles and Off-Shore bases implemented.

Gonna go off to the side for a second, stay with me.

To me LoL's grand success with it's F2P model is in no small part because they keep releasing new content every couple weeks. Something new every couple weeks wont really be possible with a game like PS2 (more detail and work goes into the the simplest content for PS2), but that does not mean that releasing new content is a bad idea.

More content means more stuff for players to spend money on in the game. More stuff to spend resources on means more people willing to pay for resource boosters. Or (if resource boosters aren't in the game) more vehicles means more stuff for people to spend money on custom paint jobs.

Back to Naval content, I have no doubt that it would become an essential piece of the combat of PS2 if they made it so. Like making travel to each continent by water possible. Being able to establish a beach head for people to hot drop into. A few off-shore bases would be uncapturable instead of land based ones. This would free up the warpgates to be used to travel to multiple continents that by then may have already been implemented. Battles over control of Warpgates would be much the same establishing a bridge head.

Assuming if by then the fervent desire for fully capturable continents hasn't died down to much lower levels, of course.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-20, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

Your signature is profoundly apropos, Malorn, but I'm sure your ability to realize it has been robbed by your incompetence.

Of course its appropriate; that's why I put it there.

Skitrel · 2012-03-20, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

Mass walkout? So the PS2 playerbase will be composed entirely of the PS1 playerbase?

Moreover, there's zero chance that they'll listen to what the community wants out of a mech? Yeah, the Ps2 devteam has a horrible track record with that.

Yet further over, the PS2 player base a year after Ps2 launch will probably be enthused to help build a new unit, mech or not. If it turns out to be a mech (likely considering coolness factor), nuts to you?

Do you have any experience with gaming communities? People are sheep, when a few complain thousands follow and huge movements occur. People jump on the bandwagon of drama because people love drama.

The PS1 vets will make up the core of the known vocal community on the forums. They will be the folks new people look to.

SOE will never take the risk. BFRs killed PS1, they absolutely destroyed it. To think otherwise is ludicrous. They will never ever take the risk of the drama BFRs could cause, and the potential fallout that would occur as a result.

No, they will look to other things for future additions to the game, new things that don't have a previous stigma attached to them, the sensible business decision, the one that doesn't have extra risk attached.

Imma make a new rule about Dunning-Kruger. Everyone that points out Malorn's sig as applying to him automatically falls into the lower quartile, not the upper.

Azren · 2012-03-20, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Do you have any experience with gaming communities? People are sheep, when a few complain thousands follow and huge movements occur. People jump on the bandwagon of drama because people love drama.

The PS1 vets will make up the core of the known vocal community on the forums. They will be the folks new people look to.

SOE will never take the risk. BFRs killed PS1, they absolutely destroyed it. To think otherwise is ludicrous. They will never ever take the risk of the drama BFRs could cause, and the potential fallout that would occur as a result.

No, they will look to other things for future additions to the game, new things that don't have a previous stigma attached to them, the sensible business decision, the one that doesn't have extra risk attached.

Imma make a new rule about Dunning-Kruger. Everyone that points out Malorn's sig as applying to him automatically falls into the lower quartile, not the upper.

You sure have great faith in SoE. Let us all hope it is not misplaced.