Could BFRs work better with the new resource system?

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Vancha

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.

I'm not making an untrue statement; I'm observing a shift in the argument.

If you were paying attention to the exchange you would have noticed the shift yourself. We started with "mechs can do any role" and then it went to "they can do any role but tanks" and then "well they can do this limited set of roles that some other vehicles can do". That's why a guy a few pages back had the humorous Monty Python quote about the Romans.

Since recognizing that the argument has moved away from practical roles of mechs and onto statements about how it's just a game and we dont' have to be practical.

Now that you're up to speed, I still don't know what to say to casting aside logical reasoning and practical design so we can have mechs who, by Cutter's own admission have no value other than coolness factor.

[Roradan]

kinda like the coolness factor they brought to ps1 muhahahaha----------not.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Roradan

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

Who said they have to be big?

Here y'go.

Anti Air
Fire support
Respawning
Re-equipping
Deploying mines
Digging foxholes (temporary)
Deploying structures
Becoming a structure
Spawning ATVs
Attachment swapping for vehicles
Base repairs
ANT-equivalent role
Short-term benefits to nearby vehicles or troops.
Blocking resources
Stealing resources
Walking bombs
Remote camera (perhaps commanders could see what the mech sees)
Salvaging
Providing enhanced/unique mission options
Providing proximity VOIP
Supply drops
Tapping into enemy VOIP/Chat
Spotting targets
Scanning for targets
Incoming OS detection
Incoming drop pod detection
OS targetting/refined OS targetting
Showing recent tank tracks/air paths
Enemy mission intel
Showing enemies on radar (similar to PS1 mossie)
Blocking itself from radar (Harasser)
Blocking others from radar
Show fake allies on enemy radar
Blocking lock-on from enemy AV
"Markerlight" enemies (allows something that wouldn't usually lock-on, to lock-on. Rocklet attachment perhaps?)
Electronic countermeasures
Drop-poddable itself
Ability to cross bodies of water
Better camouflaged
Better access to vantage points

Some are roles, some are abilities - some are good, some are probably less good. This is just what I could think of off the top of my head while trolling over the logistics and intelligence sections of Wikipedia. Apart from AA, fire support or blowing itself up, I didn't even consider offensive roles (assuming it were to have any). Do you need to utilize my imagination for that as well, or do you have an imagination too?

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'm not making an untrue statement; I'm observing a shift in the argument.

If you were paying attention to the exchange you would have noticed the shift yourself. We started with "mechs can do any role" and then it went to "they can do any role but tanks" and then "well they can do this limited set of roles that some other vehicles can do". That's why a guy a few pages back had the humorous Monty Python quote about the Romans.

Since recognizing that the argument has moved away from practical roles of mechs and onto statements about how it's just a game and we dont' have to be practical.

Out-arguing people doesn't make you right. For example, your "SIZE AND SHAPE MATTER" post assumed too much about the shape of the mech in regards to it's ability to protect troops, and while you rightly explained that something bigger is easier to hit, your argument only applies to a mech that arbitrarily has to be exactly durable as a tank. Nor did you explain why any health compensation for their height would automatically make them overpowered, and when Cutter called you on it you avoided the question entirely.

Post #110, You tell him he agrees that there's a large number of roles mechs can't fill, which isn't what he's said at all. You make an irrelevant comment about other vehicles that fill a similar role and you basically say that you can't see the use in being able to reach vantage points that are unavailable to other ground vehicles...

Your arguments were terrible, you just weren't called out on them.

And yes, the appropriate response to every comment about what's practical or what the army would want or what the military would approve of is "this is a game and it'd be cool".

Originally Posted by Malorn

Now that you're up to speed, I still don't know what to say to casting aside logical reasoning and practical design so we can have mechs who, by Cutter's own admission have no value other than coolness factor.

Maybe you'd feel like answering my question regarding all the other aspects of Planetside that cast aside logic and practicality for the sake of coolness?

[SgtMAD]

what is the point of long lists of general military functions?

this is pointless, we have seen what adding mech warrior to PS has done in the past yet we still have ppl that want to act like it never happened,its like arguing with my 8 year old granddaughter,no matter how many facts are thrown at this silly argument,we still have these ppl saying"but what if it did this"

I don't why all the BFR ppl just don't go play all those games that were listed with mechs in them already, leave PS2 alone, we don't need to start destroying the game before its even released.

anyone that truly loved PS knows what BFR's did to the game and the idea that ppl would want to even come close to repeating that debacle boggles the mind.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Maybe you'd feel like answering my question regarding all the other aspects of Planetside that cast aside logic and practicality for the sake of coolness?

No, it's a silly question.

[Skitrel]

Let me BOLD the important part of that question you just responded to with that lengthy list entirely incorrectly Vancha.

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

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

what is the point of long lists of general military functions?

He asked for them.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

I don't why all the BFR ppl just don't go play all those games that were listed with mechs in them already, leave PS2 alone, we don't need to start destroying the game before its even released.

Do I need to point out the flaws in that? Besides, no one's suggesting this is put in before release. SOE would need to wait until the majority of the people playing their game didn't have an irrational aversion to upright vehicles.

Originally Posted by Malorn

No, it's a silly question.

Dodge.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Let me BOLD the important part of that question you just responded to with that lengthy list entirely incorrectly Vancha.

In what way was that important? Is there not room for multiple vehicles performing the same role in different ways? Should we remove ATV's, MBTs' and Liberator's AV capabilities since Aircav's already got that covered?

Oh no, they don't count because they're already in the game. I hope you weren't fond of buggies, because following those rules, the only role left for them is quick transport (which the galaxy sort of occupies already), unless the ATVs can hold a passenger, in which case buggies are screwed. Bye bye buggies. See you never.

[ShockFC]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Thanks Shock.

I will change the forum rules to note that people should not have their own opinions.

Guess you still don't get it.

Edit: Hell, I'll expand again - you're an intelligent individual. I wasn't ever saying people shouldn't have their own opinions, not once. What I am saying is that this entire community is a circlejerk of people that are so head over heels for PS2 they lose sight of logic and failings from PS1. This is the first thread that voices similar to mine have begun to speak up and voice our own opinions on the matter. I'm watching one by one as they get squandered by the lunacy of the general population on these boards.

The (PSU) community, not the devs, will eventually ruin PS2. Calling it now.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by ShockFC

Guess you still don't get it.

Do enlighten the community as opposed to keeping your supposedly superior thinking to your private conversations. Particularly if you're going to spill over to public discussion with comments indicating a belief of superiority.

[ShockFC]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Do enlighten the community as opposed to keeping your supposedly superior thinking to your private conversations. Particularly if you're going to spill over to public discussion with comments indicating a belief of superiority.

My post has been edited and expanded for clarity as to what i'm referring to. Not trying to be superior

[Skitrel]

Discussion is discussion. Your belief is incorrect because it's something that occurs in absolutely every single video game forum, period. What matters however is that the discussion occurs.

There isn't a circlejerk here, far from it, there are clearly opposing sides, there always will be. What matters is that opposing sides happen, from those opposing sides comes debate driven discussion that allows devs to bounce their own internal beliefs off the discussion that's going on in the community. It gives them insight.

From that, they can then make their own decisions. That doesn't mean following a community, in fact many developers directly disregard their communities on many issues, the right decisions, because communities are often filled with people that just enjoy going against whatever happens to be the sensible well rounded answer, devolving into a mess, as this and many threads to come will go the way of.

It does not mean that developers will listen to either side, what matters is that developers see all sides and the potentially good ideas that can come out of said discussions.

Trust the devs, they have their head's screwed on pretty good at the moment. They're not quite Bungie yet, but Matt is sure as hell trying by the looks of it.

[Purple]

i just dont like things where i have to go reload to kill them.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by ShockFC

This is the first thread that voices similar to mine have begun to speak up and voice our own opinions on the matter. I'm watching one by one as they get squandered by the lunacy of the general population on these boards.

This thread has happened before...Possibly twice. The first time produced the sixth largest thread in this forum. I think perhaps you posted in the wrong thread.

Also, both sides' voices have been the quieter at different points in this thread, so I don't even know which group you're taking about.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Vancha

In what way was that important? Is there not room for multiple vehicles performing the same role in different ways? Should we remove ATV's, MBTs' and Liberator's AV capabilities since Aircav's already got that covered?

Oh no, they don't count because they're already in the game. I hope you weren't fond of buggies, because following those rules, the only role left for them is quick transport (which the galaxy sort of occupies already), unless the ATVs can hold a passenger, in which case buggies are screwed. Bye bye buggies. See you never.

It was important because there's a clear hierarchy between armour, air, infantry. Though that splits further into large groups, land, air.

Since mechs would be land, the question is simple, is this job already performed by other land units.

If yes, answer = it's unnecessary.

If no. Then sure, that's a potential option.

This cuts the list down quite significantly.

Also, that's one hell of a slippery slope argument you're trying to use. Logical fallacy.

[ShockFC]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Discussion is discussion. Your belief is incorrect because it's something that occurs in absolutely every single video game forum, period. What matters however is that the discussion occurs.

There isn't a circlejerk here, far from it, there are clearly opposing sides, there always will be. What matters is that opposing sides happen, from those opposing sides comes debate driven discussion that allows devs to bounce their own internal beliefs off the discussion that's going on in the community. It gives them insight.

From that, they can then make their own decisions. That doesn't mean following a community, in fact many developers directly disregard their communities on many issues, the right decisions, because communities are often filled with people that just enjoy going against whatever happens to be the sensible well rounded answer, devolving into a mess, as this and many threads to come will go the way of.

It does not mean that developers will listen to either side, what matters is that developers see all sides and the potentially good ideas that can come out of said discussions.

Trust the devs, they have their head's screwed on pretty good at the moment.

I understand what makes a community great. I also understand that developers do throw out most ideas that the community asks for, which is perfectly fine. Some threads on these boards do inspire heated argument and discussion - especially a thread like this about BFRs which are an emotional topic for many people. However, if you look at MANY MANY threads on these boards it really is just a bunch of idealistic circlejerking. When a community like this goes into a game like PS2 with all these expectations about how it should be played, the whining WILL commence when the game doesn't play like that. This was the problem with PS1, the forum whining OUTWEIGHED everything else, and the developers had to go to (what appeared to be) the lowest common denominator - even though it wasn't the most popular opinion.

You can try all you want to say this community will respond differently to PS2, but I assure you they wont. It's a simple formula really - person plays for a day, realizes something doesn't suit them after only using it for an hour or two - or worse, never uses it. Whines on the forum - people pile on the bandwagon, thing gets nerfed because it LOOKED like the community wanted it.

As for BFRs, honestly, I'm not sure why there's even a discussion about them. I know some people are saying they shouldn't be 1 man killing machines like in PS1 and they should be different for PS2. My question is, why even bring them up at all? If you played PS1 for any amount of time you know the animosity and stigma behind them. Even if you want them to be different, you are trolling the community by bringing them up at all at this point. BFRs, mechs, whatever - let it go. Go into the beta with less expectations, less ideals. This game could be wonderful, or it could be terrible, we'll never know until we try it. I urge each and every one of you to at least give every aspect of the game at LEAST a week of trying and implementation before you complain about it.