Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Make love not war. Well maybe a little.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
View Poll Results: Would you like a single person mech in the game? (Please read the thread before posti | |||
I don't like single person bipedal mechs and don't want them in the game | 153 | 75.37% | |
I want single person mechs, but don't like this implementation. (Explain below) | 11 | 5.42% | |
I support this implementation | 28 | 13.79% | |
Other Reason (Explain below) | 11 | 5.42% | |
Voters: 203. You may not vote on this poll |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2011-07-22, 03:01 AM | [Ignore Me] #77 | ||
Colonel
|
I'm not going to say I agree with treerat's long winded posts. BFRs were seriously flawed. This thread is more focused on just creating a regular balanced mech that's fun to use and not a multi-user chore.
The mech feel is swaying back and forth as two mechanized legs move your forward. You really don't get that from a max. A max is just a different armor for a specific purpose to be a very defined weapon system and do it well. It allows players to sit at doors even moving in and out at will. If you're not going to bother supporting a point then it's fine to admit you were wrong comparing a mech to an infantry unit, but don't be a poor sport. |
||
|
2011-07-22, 10:55 AM | [Ignore Me] #78 | ||||
Private
|
Oh and your Darwinism comment. What do you think your statements about BFRs are? Just because the small group of highly vocal "vets" (a term you use to describe yourselves that carries an immediate "we are better than you" context) found something imbalanced doesn't mean the majority of players did. I certainly didn't find them so, and had the (mis)fortune to run into a number of others across all the servers who even though they didn't pilot BFRs personally had no problem disabling or destroying them either. Personally, I think you are accusing me of using the same argument that underlay a lot of the "vets" arguments, yet not accepting that maybe your own arguments are equally flawed. Something commonly described as "pot calling the kettle black". At least in my view, I'm little a better because while I disliked a number of things (surgiles, the dominance of HA, endless zergs of aircraft), I didn't let it reach the point where I would damn anything that even carried a hint of those ideas simply out of the need to lash out at them.
You also ignored my point that role overlap already existed in Planetside. As an NC you saw it every day - Sweepers were functionally the same as Jackhammers and filled the exact same role while varying only in details (smaller clip, bit better CoF, and a little less damage) and yet you rarely (if ever) complained about that. Heck, if we extended your argument against BFRs or other "mechs", why have ANY new equipment at all since all the roles are already covered. Even your LMG arguments are hypocritical if you apply your own statement to them; PS2 already shows weapons with capability for suppressive fire in the form of masses rifles so why would be we need something like an LMG when the capability is already filled. Could it because those differences in detail provide strengths and weaknesses that differ from the other units filling that role? Frankly Malnorn I'm actually surprised in a fashion. I had originally thought you would have grasped the limits and advantages of BFRs and similar units quickly and have incorporated them into your methods even if you personally disliked them. I see now though that you are no different from the members of SG and other "elite" units; once you found something that worked you slammed the door to new ideas and reinforced them with unthinking hate. |
||||
|
2011-07-22, 11:01 AM | [Ignore Me] #79 | |||
Private
|
I could have summed it up as "Malnorn, stop being a hypocritical jackass and if you don't like BFRs say so then leave the thread." I however prefer to at least give some of my reasoning behind my positions. |
|||
|
2011-07-22, 12:06 PM | [Ignore Me] #82 | |||||||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
And that incident did not illustrate anything. For all you know the person you observed was drunk as his computer not really paying attention to the game. He may not have even been Liberty. You saw what you wanted to see and drew broad generalized conclusions without causal evidence nor a significant sample.
Just because I don't comment on every role overlap doesn't mean I like to see it. The subject of the thread is mechs, not "role overlap in Planetside." I like to stay on topic.
|
|||||||
|
2011-07-22, 12:39 PM | [Ignore Me] #83 | ||
Contributor First Sergeant
|
From the screenshots of Planetside 2 that have come out so far, it seems most people have noticed that there will be a more fluid motion when walking over rocks and other obstacles. Well, this is the exact reason legs work better than tracks. Things with feet have more maneuverability. They can climb over the mountainous, rocky terrain shown in the wintery screenshot. They would be PERFECT for Planetside 2's new engine. THIS is a reason for BFRs to be in Planetside 2. Bear in mind, BFR just means "Battle Frame Robotics". I'm not talking about the current implementation of them, i mean new ones. Possibly four legged mechs that could/would be controlled by 3+ people.
I'll read this thread once more, and if the hate continues i'm just gonna ignore it from then on, because it's getting ridiculous. Stop with all the hate, it's a game. |
||
|
2011-07-22, 12:42 PM | [Ignore Me] #84 | |||
Major
|
__________________
|
|||
|
2011-07-22, 12:43 PM | [Ignore Me] #85 | ||
First Lieutenant
|
Firstly trying to back up your point with 'Survival of the Fittest' is bullshit, so we have a forcing mechanism which you are selecting as BFR's and an existing population - the 'minority' of vets (even though pops were at their highest pre-BFR and crashed due to them). So let's analyze this, due to the BFR's populations dropped and directly afterwards the game was effectively dead until they were nerfed. Seeing as the measure of 'success' of a game could be the number of players the change was almost certainly a detrimental one as it alienated the majority of Planetside's playerbase.
However it also presupposes that you should just deal with any change and not prevent or remove said change, so with this logic we should just 'deal with' climate change, mass extinction events, oil spills etc etc. Because clearly these problems shouldn't be addressed or dealt with, we just need to adapt to living with them otherwise you are just a big whining baby right? I also love your comparison with vehicle AMP shields, a vehicle shield charges at 5 armor per second pre-nerf crouched BFR shield regeneration was closer to 150-200 APS which can nullify the DPS of multiple infantry with ES AV weapons or the DPS of an MBT. Not only that but vehicle shields were only 20% of a vehicles base health and did not come as standard. A BFR shield had the hit points of a tank and then had its underlying armor which was also around that of an MBT with its recharge rate added on. But the problem with BFR's did not just stop at their stupendous survivability, they also required only one crewman to be as effective as multiple fully manned MBT's which effectively filled the same role, they could be anti-everything with quick-switching between AA, AI and AV giving quick adaptability to any situation. They could kill aircraft more effectively than a Skyguard yet have the survivability of an MBT and the ability to fly up the the highest camping spots. They could kill tanks better than an MBT yet required only one crewman and could repair themselves. They could kill infantry as effectively as any other vehicle and were less affected by them than any other vehicle, if infantry is being attacked by a Vanguard then one man carrying a jammer will totally neutralize the threat however a BFR could still fire even while jammed and also had the ability to fly away from any fight if it was a flight variant. Even now after being repeatedly nerfed more than any other vehicle in the game they are still the most prevalent land vehicle out there which goes to say something about how effective they are. |
||
|
2011-07-22, 12:52 PM | [Ignore Me] #86 | ||
First Lieutenant
|
I don't know if anyone brought it up yet, but if it's Mechs people want, then why not play Mechwarrior?
I personally think Bipedal Robots just don't fit in with Planetside, neither with the original nor with it's upcoming successor. |
||
|
2011-07-22, 02:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #87 | |||||
Colonel
|
Regarding not liking mechs, I understand. Some people find them silly.
Odd. You're the second person I've seen that's mentioned a four legged mech with multiple people. Someone in the IRC channel wanted one. Honestly I'm not sure how to make it fun controlling a mech with that many people. You end up with someone not getting kills usually and in the end just end up leaving empty seats that aren't absolutely necessary (like the almost pointlessness of the liberators tail gunner). Last edited by Sirisian; 2011-07-22 at 02:19 PM. |
|||||
|
2011-07-22, 02:16 PM | [Ignore Me] #88 | |||
Corporal
|
Completely OT but is your a Mech fan. http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/ |
|||
|
2011-07-23, 02:08 AM | [Ignore Me] #89 | ||
First Sergeant
|
well first off, max suites are already single user mechs.
but i dont want another version. i dislike single person vehicles because they inhibit teamwork, and promote random people doign un co ordinated things. that said, im not closed to the idea of even multi person mechs, what made BFR's so bad was that they ignored the arms econmy of the game, and gave orginally far to much power for one or two people compared to every other thing in the game, and then later on, became giant useless targets. their whole design in ps1 was poorly thought out and for them to work would require a major overhaul, scrapping the orginals entirely. in the end though id rather see a more uniqie vehicle then a mech all together. |
||
|
2011-07-23, 02:37 AM | [Ignore Me] #90 | ||||
Walking tanks, irrespective of name or implementation, are, as was said, a toxic asset. The BFR affair has ruined that mindspace for the vocal minority who will, as history has shown (bad PR items in any game), create multiple threads every day and stink up the forums. It doesn't matter how well the offending asset was done. SOE cannot afford to voluntarily incite a threadnought when they have so many other exciting avenues they could dump dev cash into. Walking tanks of any kind in PS2 would probably make a ton of new players happy but would be a giant "Fuck You" to the majority of PS1 flag wavers. There's no reason to stir up trouble when you have a thousand other directions to head. That, imo, comes before any discussion of how well it could be done, what place they would or would not have in PS2* or even what kind of market share you may attract if they're in game. It's too late at this point for PlanetSide's IP to have a walking tank. There are plenty of other mech games out there, old and new, for people who want that kind of gameplay and art style. @Sirisian - Multi-leg mechs are boss. I really liked the arty frames in Chromehounds. *(as I've dumped elsewhere, I think that super-units, regardless of limitation, have no place in this scale of game)
__________________
And that was that. Last edited by exLupo; 2011-07-23 at 02:40 AM. |
|||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
Tags |
mech |
|
|