Could BFRs work better with the new resource system? - Page 3

Ghoest9 · 2012-03-15, 10:40 AM

A mech that is basically an asymmetrically balanced MBT is great.

Anything more is HORRIBLE!!

-flying - bad
-super defense - bad
-super guns - bad

Fenrys · 2012-03-15, 12:01 PM

I really don't like the idea of a huge, invulnerable robot. Everyone else might as well just log off when it shows up, and that's not fun. It would be as bad as flying max barcode hackers.

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

A mech that is basically an asymmetrically balanced MBT is great.
Anything more is HORRIBLE!!

Pretty much. I'd go farther and say it should be balanced with a Lightning. Make it faster in a straight line but slower turning and with less armor, keep the jump jets, give it a torso that rotates 180º relative to the legs, and equip it with an option of either Reaver cannons or rocket pods and either Mosquito radar or a sensor disruptor.

Light mechs might be OK like
THIS,
or like
THIS.

But heavy mechs like the PS1 BFR's or like
THIS,
or like
THIS,
would be a mistake.

Canaris · 2012-03-15, 10:44 AM

this is now my standard response to anything BFR

nomotog · 2012-03-15, 10:54 AM

Might work. Apparently BFRs where balanced when you didn't have a lot of them. Attaching a high resource cost to them keeps them from being too common.

Kipper · 2012-03-15, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by nomotog

Might work. Apparently BFRs where balanced when you didn't have a lot of them. Attaching a high resource cost to them keeps them from being too common.

...but incentivises people NOT pulling other vehicles so that they can save up to get the one OP mech.

Mackenz · 2012-03-15, 11:50 AM

Before introduction, I wasn't against BFRs, I was just disappointed that C&C was being ignored - the community had some great ideas. Hopefully missions will help with C&C (and maybe if they allow addons later to fill gaps) in PS2.

The BFR reality was bad though, and the major reason I left the game.

I think anything that is gated to best outfits reduces the accessibility - it means you have to get into a big outfit just to play one, and then probably be the OL's pet to get it over another outfit player.

Anything that so severely limits availability (very high resources, high timers, number currently fielded etc) seems to go against the grain of PS2, where you have reasonable access to everything, just not everything at the same time (or so it seems). If it isn't severely limited, and they are more powerful/flexible that current gear (aircraft/vehicles), I cannot see how you wouldn't just always take a BFR.

My hope is if they think of putting these in, they better have all other aspects of PS2 running tickety boo.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-15, 12:01 PM

I'm not posting this to oppose or support this topic, but just a reminder of what happened with BFRs and the possibility of bringing them into PS2:

BFR's were created by Smokejumper who had experience with Mechwarrior. The original concept for BFRs were that they would be rarely seen and if seen on the battlefield, you would probably only see one and it would be a game changer. An end move. A complete economy was to be developed with and introduced with them. The economy would be the means by which you could get a BFR onto the battlefield. This system could be used with the resources in Planetside 2. You could imagine an outfit having to spend resources just to field one. This is the same approach as is being considered for the Orbital Strike. It's an interesting pairing because the OS could be the counter measure necessary to stop a BFR.

When Smokejumper left SOE, a lot of work on the BFRs were done, but the economy had not. I believe that they just looked at the resources they had already put into them and decided to put them into the game anyways, in their less powerful form. When released, BFRs were very strong, but even this was not nearly what they were intended to be.

Considering BFRs for Planetside 2 is scary to veterans because they know that something was wrong with them and are afraid that it would be the same mistake. Either way, if BFRs were ever considered, I believe that the devs could find a balanced way to get them into the game. The real issue I see, is that even if balanced, how can you allow so much power to go into one to a few player's hands.

Rather than BFR's, and in fact, rather than outfit bases, I'd rather see outfits have the ability to spawn a "Titan" class vehicle that would require many men to operate effectively. Something that would be 4-5 times the size of a MBT. Even at that, there is the whole stats issue, as the driver/gunners would get many kills before they were taken out. That is, unless they were OS'd quickly enough.

Tom Peters · 2012-03-15, 12:13 PM

The problem with BFRs is that they were FULLY MANNED by ONE PLAYER. Such a powerful vehicle should require way more manpower to operate, and it wouldn't have been such a horrible game-breaker.

ThGlump · 2012-03-15, 01:31 PM

Thats why so many vets hate driver/gunner tanks. It will be like BFR all over, it dont even has to look like stupid robot.

basti · 2012-03-15, 01:45 PM

BFRs again? Really?

Dont you understand the basic issue of them? Dont you understand that a walking unit of their size simply doesnt work?

BFRs are powerful, both in defense and offence. They have to be, as they are giant targets. Thats their key issue actually, the reason why its just impossible to balance them.

BFRs should just never appear in PS2. Rather have Heavy Battle tanks (CnC Mammoth anyone?).