Could BFRs work better with the new resource system? - Page 14

Tatwi · 2012-03-17, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

TL;DR
Finally (sorry for taking so long), the conclusion - if the look of a PS2 MAX was the same as your concept for a mech, except ~7 foot high vs. 12 foot high, you would be happy, right?

This is a good thought. However, a 7' MAX can fit into an 8' base doorway, where as a 12' SMAX could not. In that case the functional difference between a MAX and an SMAX would be that one is for base combat and the other is for field combat. I like that trade off and my imagination can come up with useful niches for both MAX and SMAX chassis.

Fortress · 2012-03-17, 01:38 PM

BFR's will not be in PS2. Deal with it.

Vancha · 2012-03-17, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Fortress

BFR's will not be in PS2. Deal with it.

Mechs on the other hand...

Fortress · 2012-03-17, 01:46 PM

I hope your children disappoint you.

Talek Krell · 2012-03-17, 01:51 PM

To answer your question from last night Sirisian, what I'm suggesting is that "aims down" is not a sufficiently distinct role to warrant an entire new vehicle. Particularly when infantry and rocket launchers are already in play.

Originally Posted by Duddy

Most of those against it seem to disregarding any ideas simply due to their prejudice to the original implementation.

I'd like to point out that the thread is now at 13 14 pages, and expecting all who respond to it to read the entire thing would be, frankly, sadistic. Since the original topic and post was a question specifically about BFRs, we can expect any number of people to drop by to respond to that question.

Originally Posted by Duddy

To conclude, neither side seems to have a solid reason for or against, nor do we have a meaningful way to asses validity either way. Perhaps you should just both disagree for now and agree to re-evaluate the situation once we have the game to actually assess the situation.

Postponing the conversation would probably be more sensible, but when has that stopped us? I'll try to offer you an unprejudiced argument from my camp at least. Planetside 2, even more than Planetside 1, has the flavor of speculative fiction. In contrast a mech is fantastical through and through. Mixing those is inadvisable since it cracks immersion and sets up a slippery slope. If you want the wordier version of that then Extra Credits did a pretty good episode on it:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/technobabble

Vancha · 2012-03-17, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Planetside 2, even more than Planetside 1, has the flavor of speculative fiction. In contrast a mech is fantastical through and through. Mixing those is inadvisable since it cracks immersion and sets up a slippery slope. If you want the wordier version of that then Extra Credits did a pretty good episode on it:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/technobabble

Speculative fiction seems to encompass the most fantastical genres there are.

Would you consider all mechs fantastical? This for example, would seem to require far less suspension of disbelief than this.

Also, that Extra Credits didn't really seem to cover this, unless they attempted to misuse science terms to try and explain "mech tech".

**Malorn** · 2012-03-17, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Planetside 2, even more than Planetside 1, has the flavor of speculative fiction. In contrast a mech is fantastical through and through. Mixing those is inadvisable since it cracks immersion and sets up a slippery slope. If you want the wordier version of that then Extra Credits did a pretty good episode on it:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/technobabble

Interesting point and video. I also agree. I find myself cringing at the thought of something that makes zero sense in the Planetside universe because it is grounded in at least some reasonable concepts. To throw something vastly unreasonable in the mix creates inconsistency and breaks the story. I think essentially everything in the Planetside universe makes reasonable sense in terms of speculative fiction.

The only real "magic" is the nanites, which help explain game concepts but they don't go into very much detail about how they work, just that the build stuff and enable things to materialize out of thin air. Same with the resurrection/respawn. They explain it but don't go into details about how it works. It just does. So in the planetside universe they only go into the "Future Fantasy" world just long enough to cover critical game mechanics, and even then it's still somewhat reasonable. Nanotechnology and cloning are things we understand today. The way the Scythe and magrider work are at least reasonably grounded as well. We understand planets have magnetic fields so something that leverages that is reasonably plausible.

When we move into big robots, something not grounded in conventional thinking and serving no clear conventional military role moves into Future Fantasy. I thought it interesting that Star Wars was the classic example of Future Fantasy, and AT-ATs were used as troop transports. You didn't really question why, it just was and that's the way things were. Nor did you question why a light saber's light beam just stops when it makes little sense by our common thinkging. It doesnt matter, it just does. PS is very different and does attempt to explain things like that within reason. Nanites are PS's escape hatch for a lot of things that are done for gameplay reasons so that's fairly easy to swallow. BFRs are the odd man out and create inconsistency. MAX don't because MAX are like power armor, a step up from Rexo, small and manageable, and still have a conventional role in the squad. BFRs overlap in role with tanks and other vehicles and it isn't clear why they would exist in that universe without serving some sort of practical purpose.

Talek Krell · 2012-03-17, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction"]Speculative fiction[/URL] seems to encompass the most fantastical genres there are.

I was less clear than I should have been. I had intended to refer to speculative science fiction, as opposed to the branch of sci-fi that Extra Credits referred to as "future fantasy".

Originally Posted by Vancha

Would you consider all mechs fantastical? This for example, would seem to require far less suspension of disbelief than this.

While your first example is certainly more possible, they both fail to be especially plausible. The open driving position and light construction says to me that this is supposed to be a cheap scout and light transport. A walking quad, essentially. But why then would you not use a quad? Quads would be cheaper, faster, more reliable, and more efficient since wheels are a much simpler mechanism. And what do those legs give to a soldier? Not being seen is a critical part of both scouting and transport. Adding ~7 feet to your height is a great way to get your open cockpit raked with automatic weapon fire, and all for what? If you want to look over a hill, drive up it.

Originally Posted by Vancha

Also, that Extra Credits didn't really seem to cover this, unless they attempted to misuse science terms to try and explain "mech tech".

It points out the dangers of combining the two approaches. EC used the example of midichlorians, in which Star Wars made an unnecessary "scientific" explanation for a fantastical element and actually made it harder to suspend disbelief. In a future fantasy story the danger is in breaking suspension of disbelief by trying to explain things that neither make sense, nor need explanation (it's fantasy). In a speculative sci-fi story, you get much the same effect when you start tossing in implausible elements for no better reason than rule of cool. I also linked it as a more detailed explanation of the different types of "science fiction", and the reason that having that label doesn't constitute free license to shoehorn in anything that a given person thinks is cool.

Vancha · 2012-03-17, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

It points out the dangers of combining the two approaches. EC used the example of midichlorians, in which Star Wars made an unnecessary "scientific" explanation for a fantastical element and actually made it harder to suspend disbelief. In a future fantasy story the danger is in breaking suspension of disbelief by trying to explain things that neither make sense, nor need explanation (it's fantasy). In a speculative sci-fi story, you get much the same effect when you start tossing in implausible elements for no better reason than rule of cool. I also linked it as a more detailed explanation of the different types of "science fiction", and the reason that having that label doesn't constitute free license to shoehorn in anything that a given person thinks is cool.

I'd say nanites creating vehicles from thin air and cloning dead people back to life is fairly fantastical.

Plus hover tanks....In fact, the entire VS faction is the rule of cool in action.

Talek Krell · 2012-03-17, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

I'd say nanites creating vehicles from thin air and cloning dead people back to life is fairly fantastical.

Plus hover tanks....In fact, the entire VS faction is the rule of cool in action.

I disagree with your assessment, both because you misrepresent what is likely happening in the first two processes and because I feel the explanations for each example you've used are plausible within the assertions of this fiction. Nanoassemblers, clone soldiers, and even hovering vehicles are all sensible applications of technology we may one day develop. The VS are indeed shinier than the NC and TR but they should be. They're cheating.

In addition your assertion here is that these things are not possible. While important, this is not the same as whether they make sense within the fiction.

Sirisian · 2012-03-17, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by artifice

Mechs are essentially more mobile tanks made to traverse harsher terrain. Their size is a disadvantage as they can more easily draw lots of fire. Just reduce the number that can be built by increasing their cost and I think they could be balanced.

That's not how you balance a vehicle really. They should focus their design on just a normal vehicle that can be pulled often. No one wants another overpowered vehicle. Just look at what happened to the BFRs.

Originally Posted by Mackenz

The question is, why would I stand in a 12 foot high mech on the side of a cliff when an 7 foot MAX would do the same job for less resources?

Why would you ever use a max outside if you could just pull a lightning or a tank? It could be argued that a max is an indoor soldier armor for base walls and such while a vehicle is designed for outside of bases and for speed. I get where you're coming from comparing a bipedal vehicle to a max, but I don't feel just because it's bipedal like a max that a vehicle can't exist as long as it's sufficiently different and unique. Giving it rocket pods and say a semi-accurate AV HSR type gun I believe would be fairly different. That and maxes have their own distinct abilities (their special powers) that would be different than a mech's and possibly more advantageous in certain situations.

Originally Posted by Mackenz

if the look of a PS2 MAX was the same as your concept for a mech, except ~7 foot high vs. 12 foot high, you would be happy, right?

No. If you just scaled down a timber wolf to 6'2" (the size of a max) then it would look out of place. For soldier size the exoskeleton look is fine since it's just heavier armor than the heavy armor. For a vehicle I much prefer the battletech look of the timber wolf. Also since the size is often confusing this might serve as a reference:

That and their maneuverability would be very different. The mech might move faster after walking, but it would ideally have a higher inertia for changing directions. I also don't view powered armor like the heavy armor or MAX armor the same as a driven vehicle. The concepts are fairly distinct for me. Like when people call Iron Man a mech. *cringe*.

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

To answer your question from last night Sirisian, what I'm suggesting is that "aims down" is not a sufficiently distinct role to warrant an entire new vehicle. Particularly when infantry and rocket launchers are already in play.

I believe that same argument was used when people said the lightning shouldn't exist in PS2 since the only different was presumably a chaingun. I personally have no problem with having vehicles with different weapon systems or chassis. I'd argue that a mech is more distinct in its movement and gameplay ideally than a tank vs a lightning. Their role overlap also seems much higher than a proposed balanced mech.

Speaking of reading 14 pages:
Even for me, it's important to step back to realize that there are a large group of people that do not like bipedal vehicles and only like wheeled and tracked ground vehicles. If for realism reasons or because they've never seen a good design they do not like them at all.

There's also a group of people that believe no new vehicles should be added to the game to keep things simple. Primarily Fortress.

As a summary of the thread into broad categories you can see this:

For a balanced bipedal vehicle (12):
RNFB, sylphaen, Skitrel, Vancha, roguy, Kipper, Eyeklops, Geist, Ghoest9, nomotog, Tatwi, Fenrys, Roradan, cellinaire, ravMF, Jimmuc, CutterJohn, bigcracker, EZShot, Firefly, Tikuto, artifice

No overpowered BFR (or any vehicle that is overpowered) (7):
Kran De Loy, Atheosim, BloodySoul, Aurmanite, Baron, Purple, Mackenz

Against bipedal vehicles (no mech of any form) (25):
Malorn, Figment, ringring, Warborn, DaSwede, HtSgtMAD, Effective, Canaris, Tom Peters, ThGlump, basti, ArmedZealot, BuzzCutPsycho, DaddyTickles, Fortress, nadir, stargazer093, Sardus, Murph, Hydra, Lokster, Numberthirteen, Talek Krell, HitbackTR, ShockFC

Wants an overpowered BFR (1):
Sifer2

Unknown (didn't voice an opinion or complained about something else) (11):
Raka Maru, StumpyTheOzzie, Monkey, UnknownDT, EVILPIG, XPquant, Full of Fail, Rumblepit, StraitDumpinSMF, Skittles, Duddy

// edit moved someone around in my list. Misinterpreted their post.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-17, 06:33 PM

BFRs are a radioactive topic here. They're also something that the developers know was bad for PS1.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/n...ide-2-2343.htm

It ain't gonna happen, stop trying to make it happen. There are plenty of cool ideas out there to explore, BFRs, mechs, whatever you want to call them are not necessary. They are poison to a great many players and this 14-page topic and many others in the past show just how jaded people are by what they did to PS1. The developers and this community would have to be completely retarded to seriously consider adding them back in.

Mackenz · 2012-03-17, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Why would you ever use a max outside if you could just pull a lightning or a tank? It could be argued that a max is an indoor soldier armor for base walls and such while a vehicle is designed for outside of bases and for speed. I get where you're coming from comparing a bipedal vehicle to a max, but I don't feel just because it's bipedal like a max that a vehicle can't exist as long as it's sufficiently different and unique. Giving it rocket pods and say a semi-accurate AV HSR type gun I believe would be fairly different. That and maxes have their own distinct abilities (their special powers) that would be different than a mech's and possibly more advantageous in certain situations.

You misrepresent what I was saying about mech Vs. MAX. This was the comment this was aimed at:

Originally Posted by Sirisian

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.

My observation was that if you needed a specific weapon platform to aim down (into a canyon here), using a 7 foot MAX vs. a 12 foot mech seems easier and cheaper. Remember, I was replying to your comment on when a mech would do something a tank couldn't (aim directly down).

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Why would you ever use a max outside if you could just pull a lightning or a tank? It could be argued that a max is an indoor soldier armor for base walls and such while a vehicle is designed for outside of bases and for speed. I get where you're coming from comparing a bipedal vehicle to a max, but I don't feel just because it's bipedal like a max that a vehicle can't exist as long as it's sufficiently different and unique. Giving it rocket pods and say a semi-accurate AV HSR type gun I believe would be fairly different. That and maxes have their own distinct abilities (their special powers) that would be different than a mech's and possibly more advantageous in certain situations.

MAXs were used all the time is PS1, and they had an overdrive mode that allowed fast movement with some disadvantages. MAXes were an outdoor weapon in PS1, I would expect them to be so in PS2 also.

Seems like something has to get replaced again (uisng MAXes outdoors) to squeeze in a mech concept.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

For a balanced bipedal vehicle (13):
RNFB, sylphaen, Skitrel, Vancha, roguy, Kipper, Eyeklops, Geist, Ghoest9, nomotog, Tatwi, Mackenz, Fenrys, Roradan, cellinaire, ravMF, Jimmuc, CutterJohn, bigcracker, EZShot, Firefly, Tikuto, artifice

Actually I am in the 'don't want' camp until it is clear there is a need for them. Folks want them for the artwork and setup, vs. any particular use they may have.

On the other hand, I don't mind putting ideas out there. It is still not clear to me that a Super MAX:

created via a high cert requirement load out, and
requires more resources, and
the SMAX load out prevents entry to buildings,

cannot perform in the role that folks are currently waving their hands about for a mech. The fact that you are proposing the MAX role for indoors only (they will have to take out override since it would be useless right?) again leads me to believe that folks want mechs no matter what, and will replace/demote any and all other weapon platforms they see getting in the way of that.

Sirisian · 2012-03-17, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

On the other hand, I don't mind putting ideas out there. It is still not clear to me that a Super MAX:

created via a high cert requirement load out, and
requires more resources, and
the SMAX load out prevents entry to buildings,

Requires more resources? Why are you trying to make an overpowered BFR? I thought it was clear that if you have to make longer timers or make it cost more resources then the it's gonna be overpowered as a stock vehicle. Any form of a mech needs to be balanced as a normal vehicle that a player can be expected to use just like a lightning or a tank. Placing artifical restrictions on it to justify an overpowered vehicle is exactly what the Planetside 1 developers did and failed at.

Originally Posted by Mackenz

cannot perform in the role that folks are currently waving their hands about for a mech. The fact that you are proposing the MAX role for indoors only (they will have to take out override since it would be useless right?) again leads me to believe that folks want mechs no matter what, and will replace/demote any and all other weapon platforms they see getting in the way of that.

You can have a mech and a MAX in the game at the same time. No one is saying a MAX can't go outside with the mechs and lightnings and tanks. In fact they're not arguing that at all. We're simply saying that a mech can't go inside or where infantry is. They can't for instance sit on the huge base walls and shoot out among other places. Because we want a vehicle. Not a soldier's armor. If that point isn't clear by now I'm not sure how to be more direct.

Numberthirteen · 2012-03-17, 07:48 PM

Was thinking about this looking through the thread-- PS1 players will remember the names of the better game players they encountered over the years before & after server merges. I don't remember any of them as BFR pilots on markov anyhow.

You never remembered the names of a robot pilot when he killed you, they were anonymous.

Someone mentioned "realism" (Sirisian, but his tagline wants "creatures" ?) -- BFR/bipedal piloted stuff stretches the gaming imagination a bit too much even though it is just another type of "vehicle". Although PS is Sci-Fi-- It used vehicles that have some basis in reality. You can think of a "real life" equivalent for most of them (shit ever see the show "rat patrol" and their hillbilly buggy?). That was part of the attraction for me-- of course it is fantasy, but not ork/dork/robot/griffin fantasy. It is guys shooting at other guys.