New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by opticalshadow

well as far as already doign that, theres no need in planetside. as the story goes, all three empires are trapped in a war where no one can die. the reason UAV's and other unmanned vehicles were made was to prevent loss of life. in a situation where life cannot be lost, creating a machine to prevent that loss is pointless, and the research is better spent somewhere else.

Yea except the being unable to die thing is fairly new, if you remember the vague story of PS everyone came through a wormhole from a place they could die,
UAV's would seem like a godsend in this war anyway, imagine having 500 automated revers flying at you and still having all the soldiers free for doing other stuff :P

[Entertain Me]

I feel like a mini-mech (like an AT-ST) wouldn't be overlapping with anything. It's purpose would be anti-infantry and light anti-air with high mobility and weak armor, there really isn't an overlap (think Goliath from Starcraft). A tank would utterly destroy a mech, but a tank is much more vulnerable to infantry fire. Therefore, I think a mech would fit well, but that doesn't mean I like the idea of them in general. Probably because they would be too good at their job, and if a tank wasn't there to rescue a group of infantry quick enough, the mech would probably seem OP.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Entertain Me

It's purpose would be anti-infantry and light anti-air with high mobility and weak armor, there really isn't an overlap

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by exLupo

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

The skyguard overlapped the lightning anyway. Unless you can give a rational explanation you couldn't have fit the skyguard turret on top of the lightning and controlled it in the same manner? The speed and armor of the two vehicles were quite similar.

But then why would there be a lightning anyway? It overlaps the tank. Useless. Toss it. We only need one tank chassis.


There were a ton of vehicles in PS with overlapping roles and physical capabilities.

[Entertain Me]

Originally Posted by exLupo

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

The mech still fits because it offers proper lateral movement, its raised canopy allows it to have a much better angle against infantry while having weaker armor than a lightning. It also doesn't have the speed or power a skyguard has when it comes to anti-air. Therefore, theoretically it does seem to have its own place on the battlefield, or maybe just toss the lightning because it is an odd vehicle to begin with.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by exLupo

Between the lightning and the skyguard, overlapping both.

In PS2 I imagine the lightning would be slower, less mobile and heavier armed or armoured than a walker, while the skyguard would be faster, less mobile, require a gunner and most definitely be "heavy anti air", if skyguards exist at all (as opposed to a basic buggy with AI/AV/AA attachments).

The overlap argument's getting a tad stretched now. You could just as easily say an AI lightning overlaps an AI buggy which overlaps an AI ATV which overlaps an AI mosquito.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Unless you can give a rational explanation you couldn't have fit the skyguard turret on top of the lightning and controlled it in the same manner?

Oh hell no. The player run initiative to have interchangeable lightning turrets, with an AA option, was awesome! All I meant was that the statement that an ai/av mech not overlapping anything was incorrect. It overlapped not one but two different vehicles.

Even without the lightning, there's still the MAX headspace to contend with. Take a Vanu light mech. So you've combined a Quasar and Comet and made it bigger. It's still too samey.

Ignoring the absolutely unnecessary PR damage that adding mechs would cause, there's still too much situational overlap. PS1 has tools of every size from man to MAX and vehicles from light to heavy that cover all of the bases that this frame would. The only exception being that this is operating under two ideas.

1) It's able to swap weapon types to cover a variety of situations. This serves only to perpetuate lone wolfing while interfering on other vehicles and impacting mixed-arms scenarios.

2) It's cool. There's so many other good ideas that can go into the game that won't piss off the established players.

---

Function before form. You have to ask: "What purpose would this serve that is not already covered elsewhere?" None. Design decisions based around how cool something is always fail or, at least, have to be completely retooled down the road.

1) Figure out what role needs to be filled.
2) Present a function concept to fill that role.
3) Create unit with appropriate lore and art.

This thread and all of its support is presenting the design in the opposite direction.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The skyguard overlapped the lightning anyway. Unless you can give a rational explanation you couldn't have fit the skyguard turret on top of the lightning and controlled it in the same manner?.

skyguard needed 2 people....... unless you wanted someone sitting on the lighting roof?

[Entertain Me]

I have given this a little more thought and I'm not sure that I used the same line of thinking as you, exLupo, but I have now come to the conclusion that mechs are bad for Planetside as well. In my mind, a mech-type unit would excel at their job as a highly mobile, lateral-moving, AI/AA vehicle. But because of this, mechs would essentially become a better class of infantry, and, if implemented, would lead to everyone certing and using them. You wouldn't see a regular foot soldier except inside buildings.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Redshift

unless you wanted someone sitting on the lighting roof?

I see a <Lightning Ghost Riders> outfit on the horizon. Yes, yes...

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by exLupo

Function before form. You have to ask: "What purpose would this serve that is not already covered elsewhere?" None. Design decisions based around how cool something is always fail or, at least, have to be completely retooled down the road.

Why not just have a cool form? Theres no single vehicle in the game that can be sacrificed to make a mech? All are important? Why does every single vehicle from Planetside need to make a triumphant return in the sequel?

Originally Posted by Redshift

skyguard needed 2 people....... unless you wanted someone sitting on the lighting roof?

My point was that realism arguments are kind of silly when the current planetside vehicles don't even act in a realistic way. There is zero reason the skyguard needed 2 people in the established cannon of the game. Lightning existed. It had a driver controlled turret. The technology exists. It would have been no issue to switch to a different gun on the turret.

The game is full of arbitrary decisions. So what if the mech is implausible in real life. Half the weapons of PS, perhaps more, are completely implausible, or work in a way counter to all logical sense.

Some people like mechs. They think they look cool. I agree, they are. I also agree they would not be a major war fighting platform. Don't care.

This thread is nothing more than BFR hate for the sake of it. If the BFR had been just a super large tank, nobody would care. There also wouldn't be a rally against including tanks, since they already existed.

[Snow]

There is a lot of hate for BFRs but that's not why people are disagreeing with your ideas of how mechs could be implemented. People are not agreeing with it because it's flawed, it fits too small a niche to be worth spending time & money developing and it will be a nightmare to balance it.

Don't be so ignorant to assume that just because people disagree with you that it's because they hated BFRs in PS1.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Snow

There is a lot of hate for BFRs but that's not why people are disagreeing with your ideas of how mechs could be implemented. People are not agreeing with it because it's flawed, it fits too small a niche to be worth spending time & money developing and it will be a nightmare to balance it.

Don't be so ignorant to assume that just because people disagree with you that it's because they hated BFRs in PS1.

Can you blame him? Every reason you just stated not to have mechs are null simply for the fact that you could take any ground vehicle in the game and turn it into a mech. The very post you're criticizing included the information that completely invalidated your criticism of the idea.

[Snow]

I guess not but I don't understand why you want mechs so bad.

Yes you could pick a vehicle and sacrifice it by making it's role a mech but other than mechs are cool, why?

More importantly why would SOE want to go near mechs after how much they screwed up so badly last time round?
Why would they risk such a major PR crisis?

[CutterJohn]

I don't understand why you don't want mechs so bad. I'd like em, I think they are cool, but whatever, I can take it or leave it. The insistence that they not exist mystifies me. I get you don't like em, but there will be vehicle designs in ps2 I'm sure to dislike as well.

And it wasn't the fact that they were mechs that caused the imbalance. They could have just as easily been grossly imbalanced large tanks. They screwed up the balance because they were bad at balance. Had nothing to do with the vehicles mesh.