Originally Posted by NivexQ
Excuse me? Since when is referencing a name a discussion a politics?
Also, you're correct, it isn't thick-skulled when there is no functional purpose. But that statement right there seems thick-skulled in itself. Just because there was no functional purpose for BFRs in Planetside, doesn't mean there couldn't be in Planetside 2. You're just assuming that the game will be identical and there couldn't possibly be any other changes to accommodate that. And on another note, the BFR integration itself didn't kill Planetside; the support thereafter killed it. Once that type of game changing thing is implemented, there is usually a large amount of feedback, and action taken due to said feedback. In Planetside's case, there was no action taken to please the community. THAT killed Planetside.
Maybe the term "thick-skulled" was a bad word. How about... unreceptive?
The vast majority of Planetside players seem to be unreceptive to ideas if even a hint of past failure is lurking within.
|
I think thick-skulled fits the majority of "vets" perfectly. Along with conservative, hide-bound, dogmatic, blind-as-bats, and a number of other terms applied to those who even if the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary refuse to accept the need to alter their beliefs and outlook to make it fit the reality of situations.
As to the overlapping capabilities and roles. Do you think he is thinking n the the same manner that Heavy Assault rendered Medium Assault pointless for basically all infantry combat? Or that the Mosquito's ability to allow ejection at any time for the same cost as the purpose-built transports sent Delivers, buggies, and Galaxies to the brink of extinction plus made any concept of front line pointless? Should I mention that Lightnings had absolutely no purpose on a battlefield when a pair of MBTs (if not just one) could wipe out a squad of them before retiring for repairs due having almost the same speed, much heavier armor, and a far more deadly gun? Why bring artillery when parking Vanguards on a slope (or just a bit back from a wall and elevating the gun) would achieve the same or greater results for fewer certs, greater availability, and be able to fend off enemy tanks and infantry equally well plus not needing a spotter to squad with the driver. Heck, maybe he's thinking we shouldn't have any any certs beyond Mosquito, Reaver, Heavy Assault, Anti-Vehicle (which would only have the Decimator since it renders ES AV pointless), Advanced Medic, Engineer, and Advanced Hacker since those certs could render all other certs pointless in practice. Oh wait, I hear some voices saying things like "but those are FUN certs!", "I don't want to be a Mossie-dropping surgile!" and "They add options that make it fun to make new characters!".
Personally I think having equipment with overlapping roles is a good thing just from a balance standpoint. It helps keep a fight from becoming a matter of "who has access to the best unit that has only one counter-unit". It also provides a cushion when the inevitable over-nerf to a particular unit causes that unit to vanish from fights so that the unit the over-nerfed unit countered doesn't become too dominate.
Personally I would have made a BFR something a little different. A three-man crew is the base with the driver sitting hit in the middle, a secondary gunner in front and below him in manner used in attack helicopters with the primary gunner behind the pilot with his seat facing away from the others (think the seating of the rebel Speeders in Empire Strikes Back). The pilot would be responsible for overall movement and operate a bank of grenade dischargers (fire multiple grenades over a very short distance) for close-in defense that include jammers and chaff (breaks any active locks), as well as two medium-assault grade AI weapons either in a single ventral turret or individual side turrets mounts depending on body design. The secondary gunner operates weapons equivalent to the two primary mounts on the existing BFRs with the option for adding a communications pack to turn it into a mobile front-line command post. The primary gunner would have the current AV & AI options plus a heavier AA than the secondary gunner. With only 2 versions, the "heavy" version would add a heavy shield that regenerates over time (disabling the generator brings down the shield) and armor just below a MBT, while the "light" version would have some jump capability and a greater top speed at the price of lighter armor and no shielding.
It's specific role? First and foremost it would be a tank that can traverse terrain tracked vehicles can't (rock fields, wide ditches, broken ground, etc) in exchange for a taller profile and a slower top speed. Secondly, it can function as a heavy AA unit or a tank hunter/ killer in those terrains or for more defensive fights where speed isn't as important. It would also be able to serve as a mobile command post able to accompany ground units almost anywhere or as the mobile weapons platform used to break through defenses. With additional weapons options, it could even serve as mobile artillery. The lighter version would also be a decent flanking/ pursuit unit in terrain that would slow or be impassable to regular units thanks to it's ability to jump over common obstructions and higher top speed (in exchange for it's lighter armor and lack of shields). The big restriction on it (beyond normal class & certification requirements) is that each one costs the resources of a full squad of 4-5 upgraded MBTs to produce, and that is before any upgrades of it's own.
How does it not step on other units toes (anymore than other units already do)? Tanks would still retain the advantage of being faster and thus better for open terrain or mobile fights and high-tempo operations. Lighter vehicles would have an even greater advantage of speed and availability, making them better for long-range scouting, flanking, or the hit-and-run tactics that they needed to use to survive even before BFRs. Infantry would, as always, remain the only unit that actually dislodge an enemy entrenched inside a structure, as well as hold the edge within broken terrain - at least no less than they do in a world dominated by flying rocket and machine gun batteries that cost the same one infantry certification. Plus of course the cost mentioned before has to be considered; when you can field 4-5 upgraded tanks (and many more of other units) for each BFR, it makes choosing the BFR a choice with serious consequences. If it is destroyed that is resources that aren't coming back plus 4-5 tanks you won't be upgrading
Of course I'm sure there will be a storm of "BFR LOVER! DIE!" posts after this, all thinly disguised with completely false statements based on observations that were done to support an existing bias and thus highly selective. The irony is that the inevitable BFR-hating posts will ignore one fact. If the legs were replaced with tracks and the named changed to "heavy tank" they would likely have little to no objections. In fact some of the parts I came up with after reading their suggestions for heavy tanks before their ability to be objective and creative was destroyed through their obsessive hate for BFRs. Heck, minus who controls what, it's almost an improved Prowler with legs instead of tracks, especially since PS2 vehicles are hinted to have areas they can be targeted to damage specific components as well.