New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Sirisian]

I guess it's hard to explain that this would be similar to a ground based reaver. The reaver is a single person vehicle (and will be in the new Planetside 2) that has machine guns on it's primary weapon slot and rockets on its secondary. It will feature a huge upgrade skill-tree that I imagine many reaver pilots will enjoy.

The intention was to make a ground based version of it. When people suggest stuff like "nah make it uber powerful 3 man tank" that's not the idea at all. I want a simple mech that's fully balanced into the game. A reaver that catches one in the open would basically be at an even footing with a slight advantage probably. (Unless the mech is set up with like AA secondary rockets then it might stand a chance).

Also as Vancha pointed out if you don't like mechs it would be appreciated if you explain why. Saying stuff like "oh you mean a BFR" kind of shows you missed the idea of the thread or you're a reaver user that likes being the only thing that can zip around the map and kill both vehicles and infantry.

[Grimster]

Well I think most Planetside fans finds the term mech highly toxic due to the history we have with BFRs and to be honest I would be very surprised if SOE ever decided to implement some kind of mech because that would really be placing them back out on the mine field.

Your ideas are interesting but like previously said I think it is better to simply skip mechs and put more focus on the regular vehicles that are available to us all.

The only good thing about BFRs today in PS1 is that they make excellent bullet magnets.

[Raymac]

It sounds like Maxes are going to be pretty customizable, so that may have to be the next best thing. If something is even close to a BFR, people will still call it a BFR. It's like the old expression "perception is 90% of reality". If it is perceived to be similar to a BFR, then it might as well be a BFR. Fair? No, but thats life.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Raymac

It sounds like Maxes are going to be pretty customizable, so that may have to be the next best thing.

I'm not a fan of maxes honestly. Also this is more of a vehicle, not an indoor unit designed for base defense/offense.

Originally Posted by Raymac

If something is even close to a BFR, people will still call it a BFR. It's like the old expression "perception is 90% of reality". If it is perceived to be similar to a BFR, then it might as well be a BFR. Fair? No, but thats life.

Speak for yourself. I played the game just like the rest of you during that time. I didn't even care when they were overpowered.

It bothered me far more when Reaver rockets killed infantry after a few hits honestly. That seemed far more overpowered than the BFRs ever were. They didn't remove the Reaver. They fixed it.

Originally Posted by Grimster

The only good thing about BFRs today in PS1 is that they make excellent bullet magnets.

Indeed. Seems like every time I pulled out my lancer I'd be joined with like 10 of them and the BFR would blow up instantly. That's one of my reasons for making a new mech smaller with less height advantage.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I'm not a fan of maxes honestly. Also this is more of a vehicle, not an indoor unit designed for base defense/offense.

Speak for yourself. I played the game just like the rest of you during that time. I didn't even care when they were overpowered.

It bothered me far more when Reaver rockets killed infantry after a few hits honestly. That seemed far more overpowered than the BFRs ever were. They didn't remove the Reaver. They fixed it.

I use Maxes quite a bit outdoors, I mean the AA Max obviously, and even the AV Max (though I prefer the Phoenix if I'm going after vehicles since the NC AV Max is meh). You may very well be able to customize a Max to something similar to what you propose. We'll have to see.

As for the BFRs, I think you are in the minority on your opinion of BFRs. I see your point of view, but for the vast majority of Planetside players, BFR is a 4 letter word. If today, Higby announced that BFRs are back for PS2, you know you'd see a revolt. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make your opinion wrong at all, it just means you're not going to get much support.

[Kurtz]

Noobs are like Old People...They complain to everyone who will listen.

I've fallen and can't get up. Someone make me a "I win button".

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Indeed. Seems like every time I pulled out my lancer I'd be joined with like 10 of them and the BFR would blow up instantly. That's one of my reasons for making a new mech smaller with less height advantage.

What you're saying is that mechs should be single manned, be able to equip any variety of AA, AT or AP weaponry and be smaller so that they're less of a target?
How could that not result in being completely over powered?

I don't see how any form of mech or walker could be integrated without causing major balancing issues or making other vehicles redundant.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Raymac

As for the BFRs, I think you are in the minority on your opinion of BFRs. I see your point of view, but for the vast majority of Planetside players, BFR is a 4 letter word. If today, Higby announced that BFRs are back for PS2, you know you'd see a revolt. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make your opinion wrong at all, it just means you're not going to get much support.

nah the revolt would be tiny. I made the poll public so I could verify that it is indeed just veteran players that went through the BFR fiasco that don't like it. They're stuck in the mindset of BFR as the only implementation of a mech pretty much. Can't blame them though.

Originally Posted by Snow

What you're saying is that mechs should be single manned, be able to equip any variety of AA, AT or AP weaponry and be smaller so that they're less of a target?
How could that not result in being completely over powered?

I don't see how any form of mech or walker could be integrated without causing major balancing issues or making other vehicles redundant.

They'd be fairly weakly armored and get destroyed by other vehicles which makes them balanced. What changes do you see? Limiting the guns to machine guns and just keeping AV rockets with no other upgrades so it would be an identical ground version of the Reaver?

I'd actually like that. It could be a nice common pool type vehicle in that respect like the lightning. Or a replacement for the lightning since the game already has tanks.

[Logit]

The only obvious resolution is to make all vehicles have the ability to transform into 1 giant super robot, exactly like they do in the Power Rangers.

It has every weapon in the game and requires all 1000 people on the cont to man it.

So we will have 3 Giants Super Robots fighting for every inch of the continent, drinking resources with the thirst of 4000 Diesel Engines.

Than, and only than, will I be on board with any idea remotely close to BFR's.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Then replace one of the vehicles with something a bit cooler. Wheres the harm in that? Its a futuristic shooter, but we're running around on ATVs?

Are you suggesting we replace ATVs with mechs? ATVS are lightly armed/armored and are designed for very fast infantry ground transport that is completely lost when you replace them with mechs. They have a specific role, and are fun to drive and zip around on.

Also, there are always more roles that can be added. More nuanced options that split the difference between other vehicles, or add previously missing roles on the battlefield.

If you think of a role not already occupied by an existing vehicle that a mech would be really good at, please let me know.

I'm of the rather solid opinion mechs have no role on their own because they are basically tanks with legs. So you have either tanks or mechs, and tanks are a lot better because
1) they have lower & smaller profiles (thus taking less damage while still peforming their job)
2) more stable shooting platforms (smooth ride vs bobbing from walking)
3) better serve the "armor" role by shielding infantry from small arms (mech legs dont do that very well)
4) faster & more maneuverable

And the only thing mechs have is height for better firing angles, but that comes at the cost of being much easier to hit and thus taking a lot more damage. Steep price.

Yes. All of them. Theres a ton of AA because there is a ton of air, and AA is the only viable counter to air, a role held by two units(well, three, counting bfrs). All other ground vehicles, and all infantry, have troubles with air units. Deli's could be a halfway decent AA platform, but even with 3 people, it was less effective than a skyguard.

The state of air balance for PS2 can't really be gauged effectively by looking at PS1.

* They stated that there would be "viable" infantry anti-air.
* Flying will take a lot more skill so we'll likely see fewer pilots from that alone (and at least fewer effective pilots)
* cert roles means the one-man-army mosq/reaver pilots are unlikely to exist, those players will likely gravitate towards being full on pilots or more infantry-oriented since they cannot do both simultaneously as in PS1
* vehicles can get various upgrades, including anti-air capabilties
* we don't know the state of repair/rearm in PS2 - this was a HUGE factor to the popularity of aircraft in PS1. Before repair-rearm you actually didn't see a lot of aircraft.
* we don't know what sort of vehicle timers exist in PS2 and whether they are on shared cooldowns - this made a big difference also when they cut the timer from 10 and 5 and made it easy to have both mosquito and reaver in a bundle in PS1. That + repair rearm had a drastic increase in aircraft population.

That's a lot of different stuff there and that makes it very difficult to gauge whether we need specific anti-air.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Skyguard get replaced by an empire-specific buggy anti-air upgrade. Though the Thresher with flak guns does sort of seem ridiculously OP.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Logit

Than, and only than, will I be on board with any idea remotely close to BFR's.

What idea close to BFRs? Do you mean the few posts where people asked for multi-person BFRs?

This thread is strictly about a single person mech and how it could be implemented fairly. Again you're probably thinking of BFRs too much to have an open-mind about the issue. (I don't blame you. It seems that's the general consensus on this board about a lot of topics).

Originally Posted by Malorn

If you think of a role not already occupied by an existing vehicle that a mech would be really good at, please let me know.

Maneuverable land vehicle for the new terrains. Higby said there was terrain where tanks would rock at with open territory and other places where only planes could venture. I'm picturing a place like a forest environment where infantry is running around. Maneuvering a tank might be a PITA whereas a mech could walk around trees. (This could also be used for complicated terrain that bumpy).

I'm also imagining it as a hit and run vehicle similar in skill level to the Reaver. Nice medium range vehicle. It could strafe behind rocks and trees for cover. Doing that in a tank (a realistic tank like we'll have in the new game) is much harder.

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'm of the rather solid opinion mechs have no role on their own because they are basically tanks with legs. So you have either tanks or mechs, and tanks are a lot better because
1) they have lower & smaller profiles (thus taking less damage while still peforming their job)
2) more stable shooting platforms (smooth ride vs bobbing from walking)
3) better serve the "armor" role by shielding infantry from small arms (mech legs dont do that very well)
4) faster & more maneuverable

This idea isn't to make a walking tank... not sure where you got that. It's not designed to replace a tank at all. Ideally a tank would fairly easily kill one of these.
1) The height I said would be only twice as tall as a person making them less of an easy target.
2) The head bobbing is an implementation problem. It could easily be fixed to be a smooth ride. (Think mechwarrior or BF 2142 I guess which has smooth mech movement.
3) Not what these mechs are designed for. Their suppressive fire to be used in finding and attacking enemies in hard to maneuver places.
4) Depends on the terrain. Remember the physics are being changed for tanks so they have momentum. Imagine driving a tank into a forest. It might not be as easy as it once was. It would however be a mech's advantage to move and hide behind rocks and trees and fire a barrage of missiles once in a while.

Originally Posted by Malorn

And the only thing mechs have is height for better firing angles, but that comes at the cost of being much easier to hit and thus taking a lot more damage. Steep price.

That's why I suggested making them only twice as tall as a player. That's significantly smaller than a BFR in the game.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

What idea close to BFRs? Do you mean the few posts where people asked for multi-person BFRs?

This thread is strictly about a single person mech and how it could be implemented fairly. Again you're probably thinking of BFRs too much to have an open-mind about the issue. (I don't blame you. It seems that's the general consensus on this board about a lot of topics).

You want a Mech? There are 3 Max variants that have you ready for almost every situation in the game.

Mech's are a bad idea, giving too much power to 1 person is a balance nightmare. Reduce the armor all you want, it will just promote people to camp and hide which is what the current BFR's already do.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Logit

You want a Mech? There are 3 Max variants that have you ready for almost every situation in the game.

Yes. Maxes aren't vehicles that can be ridden in and repaired. It's like saying "why do we have a fury? It launches AV rockets. The max does that and is fast when running". Different play styles.

Originally Posted by Logit

Mech's are a bad idea, giving too much power to 1 person is a balance nightmare. Reduce the armor all you want, it will just promote people to camp and hide which is what the current BFR's already do.

I don't see where there would be too much power. Reavers camp and hide already behind mountains. Apparently you forgot that. They also hover and launch rockets. The idea I proposed is a balanced system. I also listed many weaknesses and way to defeat them. Just shooting them is enough to destroy components. Even if someone spent certs to get a shield it would be a momentary defense and not a forever effect. Something to turn on for a few seconds. (Like if a reaver comes flying down for an easy kill).

[Death2All]

I think the poll speaks for itself that most people within the community are totally opposed to the idea.

I'm noticing a reoccurring theme that if people don't agree with you outright then you have to argue and try to sway their opinion. Not everyone is going to like every idea they hear, especially if it resembles BFRs, one of the biggest scapegoats for the demise of Planetside, in the slightest.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

I think the poll speaks for itself that most people within the community are totally opposed to the idea.

"The community of veterans" yeah. Though I kind of figured this was the case having read most of the BFR threads.

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

I'm noticing a reoccurring theme that if people don't agree with you outright then you have to argue and try to sway their opinion. Not everyone is going to like every idea they hear, especially if it resembles BFRs, one of the biggest scapegoats for the demise of Planetside, in the slightest.

Indeed. Though not so much to sway their opinions. More just to see if there are any good ideas for the game if the developers do indeed implement something. I doubt they care if a few veterans hate change. If they implement something cool they know the veteran players are probably going to get over it.