Could BFRs work better with the new resource system? - Page 8

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

If you give a tank a mech chassis you make it an inefficient vehicle and you rob it of its design benefits. Mechs must sit higher off the ground, and they have legs. The higher profile means they're going to take more damage because they are easier to hit. In order for them to have the same effective survivability as a tank, mechs must be given more survivability. This is where the mech design goes wrong. Once you start giving them significantly more survivability than tanks (because you have to) they become super vehicles and in large numbers they throw the game balance all out of whack.

Fair enough. A mech would, because of its profile, make a piss poor tank, I'll give you that. The rest of your argument is, to use your words, a steaming pile of false.

There doesn't really exist a sweet spot. Either they are more effective than tanks or they aren't.

Its tall, therefore it cannot be balanced? Really? Regardless of any balancing action you can take, a stupidly underpowered vehicle with 999 hitpoints becomes gamebreakingly overpowered at 1000 hitpoints? A ridiculous argument and you know it.

BFRs were OP because the devs wanted them to be 'super vehicles' and they grossly overestimated the inhibiting effect of the 45 minute timer.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 04:49 PM

You said yourself the only reason to add them is "coolness"

Why bother if, as you say yourself, they make "a piss poor tank."?

What value do they provide the game? What role do they fit? You made a claim they can fit any role, and now have since conceded that they cannot fit a tank role. So what roles can they fill?

Lots of stuff is cool. But that doesn't make it a good idea. Like planking on a balcony.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

You said yourself the only reason to add them is "coolness"

Why bother if, as you say yourself, they make "a piss poor tank."?

What value do they provide the game? What role do they fit? You made a claim they can fit any role, and now have since conceded that they cannot fit a tank role. So what roles can they fill?

Lots of stuff is cool. But that doesn't make it a good idea. Like planking on a balcony.

What roles can't they fit?

They can be tanks, just not if there are actual tanks around. Theres two different definitions at play here. The traditional military tank, and the gameplay 'tank' role commonly useful for attracting attention and soaking damage. They could easily perform the latter.

More important, however, is the simple fact that the tanks exist in game already, so it would be pointless to change them or make a vehicle that competes with the role.

Mechs also can't fit the transport role, unless you want an AT-AT. :P

And mechs would make piss poor boats and aircraft.

So. Anything else. A couple of examples where they would be perfectly fine.

-Long range fire support. A glass cannon type vehicle.
-An extreme terrain vehicle that can climb terrain other vehicles would never even attempt. Only really valid if its a 4 legged type though.

-Why does a skyguard need to be a buggy? Could be perfectly fine as a mech. Wouldn't hurt a thing.

Lokster · 2012-03-16, 05:12 PM

BFRs ruined the original PS. For the love of god, please don't even consider adding them into PS2.

I honestly believe that anyone who is in favor of BFRs, never played PS before they were added....

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

What roles can't they fit?

They can be tanks, just not if there are actual tanks around. Theres two different definitions at play here. The traditional military tank, and the gameplay 'tank' role commonly useful for attracting attention and soaking damage. They could easily perform the latter.

More important, however, is the simple fact that the tanks exist in game already, so it would be pointless to change them or make a vehicle that competes with the role.

Mechs also can't fit the transport role, unless you want an AT-AT. :P

And mechs would make piss poor boats and aircraft.

What I'm getting from this is that you agree that there's a large number of roles they can't fill.

Even the 'cool' AT-AT role would overlap with the Galaxy or Sunderer, and if the purpose was getting troops to a deployment zone quickly and safely, the AT-AT would do a piss poor job of it.

So. Anything else. A couple of examples where they would be perfectly fine.

Long range fire support. A glass cannon type vehicle.

Long-range fire support is also tank-territory. Or Orbital Strike territory. Or the long-range fire support from PS1 called the Flail.

-An extreme terrain vehicle that can climb terrain other vehicles would never even attempt. Only really valid if its a 4 legged type though.

I don't get why a mech would be useful here. The best kind of extreme terrain vehicles are aircraft. And since the Liberator can have a 150mm cannon on it, I think it fills that role nicely.

-Why does a skyguard need to be a buggy? Could be perfectly fine as a mech. Wouldn't hurt a thing.

Right, they're called Bursters. In PS2 every MAX has a burster config option.

In any case, Mechs are simply not good design for specialized roles. They are a general weapon platform that is inferior to tanks and inferior to aircraft, so unless you make them super vehicles the have no purpose.

Mackenz · 2012-03-16, 05:26 PM

"All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

"All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

I LOL'd

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 05:38 PM

Wait.. so you want no new vehicles ever in ps2? Just tanks and lightnings?

Fortress · 2012-03-16, 05:41 PM

Yes.

EDIT: For niceness, adding new crap to a game of this scale just because it's "cool" is a balancing nightmare, and bad balance ruins shooters.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Wait.. so you want no new vehicles ever in ps2? Just tanks and lightnings?

C'mon Cutter, you know that's not what is being said.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

C'mon Cutter, you know that's not what is being said.

Then what is being said? That we don't need a skyguard because we already have MAXs? Then why where Skyguards in PS1?

It can't work as long range fire support because tanks kinda do that, and we can't make something do it better?

Originally Posted by Fortress

Yes you idiot.

When your arguments fail, resort to personal attacks. Brilliant! Nobody has ever tried this tactic before.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 05:47 PM

Edit: double post, oops.

Fortress · 2012-03-16, 05:47 PM

You don't get it. PS1 BFR's proved that a poorly implemented element in a game of this scale will have its negative effects magnified to the point where the game is unplayable. The devs don't have the luxury of adding a thousand little "omg soo cool" things because that approach is a balancing nightmare, and unless you want to delay PS2 to 2056, BFR's can't happen.

I really wish at least 10% of the people on this forum played planetside past 2004. I really do.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-16, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Fortress

You don't get it. PS1 BFR's proved that a poorly implemented element in a game of this scale will have its negative effects magnified to the point where the game is unplayable. The devs don't have the luxury of adding a thousand little "omg soo cool" things because that approach is a balancing nightmare, and unless you want to delay PS2 to 2056, BFR's can't happen.

Yes, but you don't get that the fact that BFRs looked like big robots had almost zero impact on those negative effects. It had a bit, since mechs have to be higher, so there are some slightly different balance considerations.

If BFRs had been large tracked vehicles with exactly the same stats, we would not now be having this conversation. We would all hate BFRs because they were OP, but nobody would be raging against tracked vehicles. They would be raging against the idea of a particular implementation where they are made intentionally OP.

Fortress · 2012-03-16, 05:57 PM

If they are large tracked vehicles with the same stats (as MBTs?), then they are MBTs and not BFR's. If they only look like BFR's, with the stats of MBTs, they are bad MBTs and therefore pointless to add. If they are tracked vehicles have the same stats as BFRs, then they are super BFRs, and should not be in PS2.

Get it through your head.