New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Logit]

This thread is going to give me diarrhea I know it.

Reavers can no longer hover, thus taking away pretty much all of it's camping capabilities.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

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).

The idea of that environment is to not have vehicles there.... making a vehicle that can be there kinda ruins the point

[Raymac]

Bigger than a Max, but smaller than a BFR = too niche.

It's like if I were to ask for an aircraft that had a little more firepower than the Mosq to be able to attack ground targets, but still not be as big or heavy hitting as the Reaver, it would be the same thing. It's too much of a niche item to see in the game.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Logit

Reavers can no longer hover, thus taking away pretty much all of it's camping capabilities.

Whoa, when did that happen? I know they are updating the flight mechanics, but did they say they are removing hover?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Raymac

Whoa, when did that happen? I know they are updating the flight mechanics, but did they say they are removing hover?

Yeah I thought I've read everything in the game. I thought they were keeping VTOL.

[PsychoXR-20]

The question that needs to be asked is: Why do we need a mech? What does a mech do that a tank can't?

And "Because it's cool" isn't an answer.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Yeah I thought I've read everything in the game. I thought they were keeping VTOL.

OK, don't everyone shit their pants lol. I was assuming part of the new flight mechanics wouldn't allow the hover.

My b.

[Chaff]

Not into the Mech idea after seeing the BFR fiasco.

I think there is merit close to the Mech idea. How about an ULTRA-Max ?
It should be a VERY difficult cert-tree to attain. It should be close to tank, but also yield high XP/BEP to those who kill it. New things aren't bad. The players in this game will always find a weakspot on anything this game has at inception, or chooses to add later.

NC ULTRA MAX: Increase/improve everything it does now 20% (incl ammo)
TR ULTRA MAX: Allow to rotate 45 degrees more when in lock-down + 20% ROF + 25% ammo.
VS ULTRA MAX: Agility up 10% + 5% ROF + 25% ammo + 10% more damage
....whatever....details get tweeked in Beta.

[p0intman]

don't put mechs in planetside period.

kthnx.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by p0intman

don't put mechs in planetside period.

kthnx.

So take Maxes out?

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by Raymac

So take Maxes out?

I would tentatively be in favor of that, actually.

[Malorn]

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).

BFRs were also single-man vehicles. Or did you forget that? They were also highly mobile with flight variants that made them even more ridiculous.

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.

Role overlap. Why would you use this mech over a Reaver? For rugged terrain the reaver is the preferred supriority vehicle, being the rough equivalent to a helicopter gunship in Afghanistan. The reaver is also faster and 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.

Because in every other context mechs are functional tank replacements. I was describing the only meaningful role they can possibly provide to Planetside.

1) The height I said would be only twice as tall as a person making them less of an easy target.
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.

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

You're basically describing one of the large MAX suits they had in the movie Avatar. Which is just a MAX...only a little bigger.

So you want a Reaver-MAX. By definition...role overlap. If you want a small mech, that's called a MAX. If you want a bigger mech, that's called a BFR.

And the vehicle you describe is in every way inferior to a Reaver and the Reaver does its role better.


The vehicle you describe will either be completely worthless or it will be good enough to replace reavers, tanks, and/or MAX outdoors.

Again, why the hell do we need this thing? The only role you've provided is a tight niche that the reaver already excels at.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

Who says mechs are slow? A small 1 man deal that weighs couple tons? Could be quite spry. It would be fun to zip around on a mech too.

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.

1. Quite true. Though I think you underestimate how tall tanks are. That mech in district 9 would be only slightly higher.
2. I fear you have not spent enough time off road in a wheeled or tracked vehicle, nor on a horse. The ride on rough ground will definitely be smoother on the horse at a canter or gallop since they adjust their legs to the terrain rather than bouncing over it, and the turrets will be stabilized for both anyway.
3. Not all vehicles serve this role, or need to.
4. Faster over certain types of terrain and not as maneuverable.

A mech would not be heavily armored. Foot loading would be too high. They could never be walking tanks, and would fail at the job. Their purpose would be highly mobile scouts/fire support in rough terrain, like mountainous areas and thick forests. They could step over obstacles that would be insurmountable, possibly even climb somewhat with the right foot and leg design. They are tall, sure, but they can turn, sidestep, etc, to fit through tight areas, and are much narrower than tanks/apcs/trucks. Anything you can do or anyplace you can go on legs a mech could pretty much follow, so long as whatever it was supported its weight. Mechs would suck as badly on flat desert as tanks do in the mountains.

[NivexQ]

This is exactly how I originally envisioned bfrs. Sadly, the planetside community will never support them, because they're completely thick-skulled at this point from SOE's lack of, well, doing... anything. BFRs could work, but it's priot implementation has ruined the original idea and prevented any further ideas from being pursued. Honestly i'd analogize with communism but I don't wanna be flamed... but here's one.

When Obama was running for president, black comedians were going all out basically saying "Don't f*** this up or we ain't gettin another chance for 100 years"

The BFR concept is a great idea (not original, but great), that was very poorly executed. Nobody will give it a chance, and every time a new player in Planetside 2 says "Man this is great but mechs would be even better" (and i know they will) all the vets will immediately start harassing the newbie to refute his statement and never mention it again

[Malorn]

The word "Obama" has no place here; keep your politics to the politics forum.

Sadly, the planetside community will never support them, because they're completely thick-skulled at this point from SOE's lack of, well, doing... anything. BFRs could work, but it's priot implementation has ruined the original idea and prevented any further ideas from being pursued.

Also, it's not thick-skulled to dislike something because it has no functional purpose. Quite the opposite, actually.

And yes, BFRs could have "worked", as in, we could have tolerated their existence. But that doesn't change the fact that their existence was meaningless. They served no purpose other than ruining the game.

Someone thought it would be cool to have mechs. And if you ask people "Hey, are mechs cool!?!?" Many people would say yes. Because mechs are, in fact, cool. Are they good for gameplay? No. Should we add them because they're cool? Hell no! Should we add a different implementation after we already got burned by it and ruined Planetside 1? Jesus fuck no!