Could BFRs work better with the new resource system?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Size and shape are important. Military prefers things that are not giant "shoot me" targets. Low profile, high power, low surface area. Those are good qualities.

So you make it 12 feet lowering the profile. I still don't understand your fascination with realism and what a real military would do on an alien world. Using such reasoning is not very constructive in a science fiction game.

Giving players different vehicle choices for different scenarios is beneficial. I personally want 30+ vehicles in the game as things progress so I'm more a fan of uniqueness. For instance, the difference between a buggy, tank, mech, sunderer. Basically introducing vehicles with varying handling and weapons.

A lightning for instance will probably have its long range fast firing cannon capable of lobbing shells at targets and weak customizable Gatling gun. A mech would have say slow rate of fire HSR type guns with customizable cluster rockets. Does that role overlap against say a tank that can launch a nearly LOS shell into the side of the mech or lightning? You might see a mech strafe out of the way as a tank fires shells. A lightning might be able to lob shells from a distance nailing the components of a mech while the mech launches a barrage of rockets. Or the lightning switches to its Gatling gun and starts taking aim at the arms to disable the weapon systems using skill. A tank with a an AV accurate gunner might do the same pushing the mech to move behind a tree and do sneak attacks. I digress the gameplay and balancing would be complicated so arguing about area being a large factor is pointless.

Originally Posted by Baron

1) only needed crew of 1
2) configured with AV, AI, AA (or pick 2)
3) AV for the pilot worked great on most ANYTHING
4) most armor
5) most shields
6) flight <---- !!

All of that power and versatility for a 1 crew vehicle was what made BFRs completely ridiculous.

Agreed. I think you'll find there is a balanced solution without 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Still feel it should be 1 person. It's no different than someone in a fighter jet by themselves or a person in a lightning or a tank. Personally I'd hate to have to have 2 people gun a small balanced mech. Adding two people just leads to the BFR and tank problem where the developers give it more endurance. Not necessary if it's designed as a 1 person vehicle (relating to 4). Flight variants were generally pointless and broke the game. A ground vehicle generally should not break the border between land and air vehicles. This isn't a Starhawk mech ideally. Everyone agrees that the shields would need to go (5). A properly balanced mech wouldn't require invulnerability. I'm not against modules for vehicles as defense though. Kind of like how aircraft have flares a tank or mech could have momentary shields that pulse to block if one sees say a fighter that drops in for a rocket run.

// edit, it should be obvious now that people arguing for mechs don't want BFRs.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I still don't understand your fascination with realism and what a real military would do on an alien world. Using such reasoning is not very constructive in a science fiction game.

Your latter statement is untrue to various extents depending upon what sort of science fiction is being referred to. Regardless his fascination with plausible vehicle designs is no less reasonable than your insistence on vehicles that walk.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Giving players different vehicle choices for different scenarios is beneficial.

While giving players different choices for different scenarios is indeed beneficial, different vehicles are not required. The existing chassis are designed to be highly modifiable for that exact purpose.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I digress the gameplay and balancing would be complicated so arguing about area being a large factor is pointless.

Technically this entire thread is pointless. Surface area being a nontrivial factor is as valid a subject as any.

[Roradan]

Really tho mech's bfr's or what ever you want to call them. yes i played before they came out and after and used them yes the were poorly put into the game.But what support roll do they play that we don't all ready have in the game just to add content. really unless you want flying overpowered monsters again. And if you cant think off a roll before a game comes out then you don't have a military mind and should just be a follower and enjoy the game but for us who think about tactics a battle frame robot does not have a place in the game. sorry but this something i feel very strongly on and it tug's at my heart strings because i enjoyed ps1 so much and i just cant see a tactical use for them that would not ruin gameplay in other area's!!!!!!!!! feel free to call me anynas ame you wish but again ps1 was the most fun i have ever had in a video game ever and i have played since i was a kid lot's and lots of game's. IF you support bfr's i would like to hear what tactical benefits you think they bring plz tell in detail thank you.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Size and shape are important. Military prefers things that are not giant "shoot me" targets. Low profile, high power, low surface area. Those are good qualities.

Mechs are the anti-tank dogs of the 21st century.

Other good qualities are being physically possible. Magic vanu hover tech is completely impossible. No known science could replicate its effects.

I think militaries would prefer an implausible vehicle to an impossible one.

Another thing militaries prefer is camouflage, not brightly colored infantry and vehicles with glowing bits stuck to them.

The PS universe cares nothing about what is possible or a good idea in the real world. Its a game.

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Technically this entire thread is pointless. Surface area being a nontrivial factor is as valid a subject as any.

Indeed it is actually a valid argument. Not terribly valid imo, considering the surface area of the bang bus, but valid enough.

Originally Posted by Roradan

IF you support bfr's i would like to hear what tactical benefits you think they bring plz tell in detail thank you.

Their benefit would be whatever you want to give them as a benefit, as its nothing more than a graphical option, with some potential minor advantages and disadvantages due to its taller profile.

[Atheosim]

Mechs are cool as FUX guys. That's why PS2 needs them. Schucks!

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

While giving players different choices for different scenarios is indeed beneficial, different vehicles are not required. The existing chassis are designed to be highly modifiable for that exact purpose.

I hope you're not arguing that we should never add anymore vehicles because the current ones already can be customized for every possible gameplay situation. I already said a tank, fury, lightning probably can't aim down. This is a problem on canyon walls and other terrain which did not really exist in PS1. These types of terrain features really open up the room for a mech chassis to be a customizable platform for these regions.

Among the reason to add variety toward maneuverability. Treaded vehicles and wheeled vehicles do not function at all like a mech does making it unique as a platform.

[Roradan]

[QUOTE=Sirisian;657703]I hope you're not arguing that we should never add anymore vehicles because the current ones already can be customized for every possible gameplay situation. I already said a tank, fury, lightning probably can't aim down. This is a problem on canyon walls and other terrain which did not really exist in PS1.

not really if a mech goes into a canyon the air support will wipe it clean because in a canyon bottleneck's making it very week plus in ps2 all your vehicles will have upgrades which will make them unique and as said in vid's of ps2 it will take up to a year to get to the top of some of these upgrades so again plz tell me in detail what support roll do they play only one that comes to mind for me is a defence unit which with the new fast style game play would not suit the game as i see it?

[HitbackTR]

You, i.e., the pro-BFR clowns,are fucking retarded if you want BFR's back in PS2, especially if you played PS1.

To the people who never played PS1 who 'want' BFR's in PS2, you are doubly fucking retarded because you have no idea what the fuck you are advocating.

I swear to god, the majority of the people on this forum are well, fucking retarded.

/looks back over some of thread...yup pretty much.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Roradan

not really if a mech goes into a canyon the air support will wipe it clean because in a canyon bottleneck's making it very week plus in ps2 all your vehicles will have upgrades which will make them unique and as said in vid's of ps2 it will take up to a year to get to the top of some of these upgrades so again plz tell me in detail what support roll do they play only one that comes to mind for me is a defence unit which with the new fast style game play would not suit the game as i see it?

Holy crap dude. Grammar, please? Reading your posts makes my head hurt.

He said nothing about mechs being in canyons. In fact, the benefit he's attributing to the mech form relies on them not being in canyons. Read his post again.

Originally Posted by HitbackTR

You, i.e., the pro-BFR clowns,are fucking retarded if you want BFR's back in PS2, especially if you played PS1.

To the people who never played PS1 who 'want' BFR's in PS2, you are doubly fucking retarded because you have no idea what the fuck you are advocating.

I swear to god, the majority of the people on this forum are well, fucking retarded.

/looks back over some of thread...yup pretty much.

Did you look back over enough of the thread to realize the majority of people in support of "BFR"s want nothing like the BFRs in PS1?

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The PS universe cares nothing about what is possible or a good idea in the real world. Its a game.

So you've conceded that mechs make no practical sense and have no role, so now you're arguing that we should discard common sense and reason because its a game. By your reasoning the problem is not mechs, it's that pesky practical thinking and good vehicle design interfering with our game having cool mechs.

I really don't know what to say to that.

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by HitbackTR

You, i.e., the pro-BFR clowns,are fucking retarded if you want BFR's back in PS2, especially if you played PS1.

To the people who never played PS1 who 'want' BFR's in PS2, you are doubly fucking retarded because you have no idea what the fuck you are advocating.

I swear to god, the majority of the people on this forum are well, fucking retarded.

/looks back over some of thread...yup pretty much.

what exactly do you think a BFR is?

[Roradan]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Holy crap dude. Grammar, please? Reading your posts makes my head hurt.

He said nothing about mechs being in canyons. In fact, the benefit he's attributing to the mech form relies on them not being in canyons. Read his post again.


Did you look back over enough of the thread to realize the majority of people in support of "BFR"s want nothing like the BFRs in PS1?

OK standing of top of a canyon still air support will wipe it clean. and you made no good point which role they play in the game which we don't all ready have o and i could give a shit less if i spell something wrong or don't put enuff................................in it for you were talking about gameplay and big ass robot's that have no place on the field of combat unless they are overpowered ?????

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by HitbackTR

You, i.e., the pro-BFR clowns,are fucking retarded if you want BFR's back in PS2, especially if you played PS1.

To the people who never played PS1 who 'want' BFR's in PS2, you are doubly fucking retarded because you have no idea what the fuck you are advocating.

I swear to god, the majority of the people on this forum are well, fucking retarded.

/looks back over some of thread...yup pretty much.

Post of the day and it's only 8am.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Malorn

So you've conceded that mechs make no practical sense and have no role, so now you're arguing that we should discard common sense and reason because its a game. By your reasoning the problem is not mechs, it's that pesky practical thinking and good vehicle design interfering with our game having cool mechs.

I really don't know what to say to that.

I've been reading the exchange between you and Cutter for a while now. I just want to say that stating your arguments are valid and telling people they've conceded theirs doesn't make it so.

Would you suggest that we change all the empires' colours to mud-brown, since no military would want to be so visible, and bright purple/blue/red soldiers make no practical sense? Do you suggest we give the magrider wheels, since you need to discard common sense and reason to think such a propulsion system could move a vehicle of that size that fast? Using your logic, wouldn't it actually make the most sense to just scrap the entire game due to the sheer amount of unrealistic and impractical aspects that could probably be listed off? I mean hell, we got to Auraxis through a wormhole and the passengers survived. That's not realistic...

Adding things because they're cool is what separates sci-fi from reality.

Originally Posted by Roradan

OK standing of top of a canyon still air support will wipe it clean. and you made no good point which role they play in the game which we don't all ready have o and i could give a shit less if i spell something wrong or don't put enuff................................in it for you were talking about gameplay and big ass robot's that have no place on the field of combat unless they are overpowered ?????

Oh, well if you don't want me to read your posts, I'm more than happy to oblige.

[Roradan]

Oh, well if you don't want me to read your posts, I'm more than happy to oblige

Thank you for still not defining a role for big ass robot's. which we don't all ready have in the game ??