New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

If your best argument is that SOE will screw up the physics like they did 7 years ago that's a big assumption.

Really didn't want to go into stuff like that. I've always found it a bit of a fool's argument to say the reason you don't want something is because it takes time. Anything added to the game takes time away from other things so it's a bit of a no-brainer if you don't like it then it's taking time away from something else you want.

It's not the physic i was on about it's the animation, if you don't animate them properly they look stupid, and you notice things like that more on tall vehices.

The reason i mentioned time and money is because these mechs as they've been suggested don't add anything to the game, they don't do anything that a tank can't, and since they serve no purpose adding them is wasting money, if SOE suddenly find themselves swimming in cash maybe they will add extra stuff thats not really needed but considering how many staff they've laid off recently i doubt they will.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Obviously they won't. I just enjoy pointing out how absurd that stigma is.

Stigma isn't suppose to be rational, thats why it's stigma, and not fact.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Redshift

Stigma isn't suppose to be rational, thats why it's stigma, and not fact.

I'm well aware. The mental gymnastics people are using as justification of their stigma are interesting.

[Xyntech]

Let's also not forget the fact that there will hopefully be no BFR stigma for the majority of Planetside 2 players.

I say hopefully, because in an ideal situation, there will be a lot more newcomers to Planetside 2 than there will be PS1 veterans.

I'm hoping a lot of the people from PS1 come back for PS2, but I'm also hoping for a lot more players than PS1 ever had. That would mean a lot of people who don't even know what a BFR is.

Now that doesn't say anything about a stigma against the aesthetic idea of mechs, but BFR's have a lot more stigma than just their aesthetics, even if some of the strongest stigma is still rooted in a dislike of the idea of mechs in general.

Since mechs aren't even a possibility until after the game launches, I guess we'll have more of those new voices to contribute to the debate once it really matters.

[exLupo]

Part of me is surprised that this thread is still rolling but, really, this is only the first of thousands that will pop up over the years of PS2's life. Mechs are cool. Not for everybody but there's a huge following to the idea, no matter how absurd the reality would be.

It doesn't change the fact that if it looks like a BFR and quacks like a BFR, it's a BFR as far as the built-in PS1 fanbase is concerned.

Know something that I like? The word "niggardly". It rolls off the tongue well and is a nice alternative to "miserly". However, it sounds a whole lot like a word that, in western society, is a pretty big taboo. Feel free to say it out loud right now and see if you get any looks or if anyone cringes. Collateral damage in the greater social psyche. BFRs did fantastic damage to PS1 and are anathema. The collateral damage is that we'll never have mechs in PS2.

These threads will come and go but PSU regulars know better than this. Let it die.

[SKYeXile]

I think people need to put aside their hated with BFR's and their implementation in PS1, its very obvious they were EXTREMELY broken in PS1, certainly at their release, but they also changed the dynamics of battle, the hold lines better than anything else in the game and require focus firing to takedown or even force a retreat. We dont want BFR's in PS2, thats for certain.

If think they could work in PS2, provided they're not master of all like they are in PS with the flick of a button or 2. i think if they had:

no regenerating shields.
a much smaller profile, still bigger than maxes.
had a hard counter, im going to say aircraft(with no option for AA) put a massive weakspot in their back, the mech could have a 360deg swivel torso so it could hide this from whoever it wants but it would be highly prone to a aircraft straif, or any AV shot to the rear.
since its single man, it could not have anywhere near asmuch HP as MBT, i would say 50-60%. of a tanks HP.

hrmm actually they still sound gay...forget i said anything...im gonna go with no mechs in PS2.

[2coolforu]

The point is not that they are hated purely due to BFR's, a lot of people dislike the aesthetic they have associated with them; myself included. It's also due to the fundamental tropes generally associated with mechs, the way they exist in all fiction and games is as basically the main force/elite force of an army yet this role does not exist in Planetside. There is no such thing as an 'uber' weapon that is simply good for no other reason than 'Rule of Cool', the fundamental tenet of Planetside is that everything has a rock/paper/scissors role and fundamentally that multiple people working together to fill one role should always defeat solo players also filling that role or at the very least give extra diversity.

We don't NEED a one man vehicle, all a mech would add is a lightning with more diversity. The one man vehicle already exists in the shape of ATV's and Lightnings which sacrifice mainstay combat ability for the ability to fire and drive. The only thing that makes the mechs have any reason to be in the game is to shoehorn in some form of customization, yet we already have this in the shape of locked down vehicle upgrades, we also have weak spots (rear armor etc) and its clear that all main vehicles like MBT's and Galaxies are still limited to being effective in one defined role regardless of upgrades whereas the mechs have the ability to use AA/AV/AT, fly etc which is just stupidly diverse and ends up in role overlap and boring gameplay where every vehicle on the battlefield is the same thing with either swapped out AT/AV or AA unlike the true combined ops battles that relied on teamwork and not just swapping out your own weapons depending on whether another mech, aircraft or infantry killed you.

There isn't a role in the game for a one manned mech.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

There isn't a role in the game for a one manned mech.

There isn't a role for half the stuff that was in Planetside if you shuffle things around a little.

I'm not saying they should make a niche for mechs to fill, just that they could if they wanted to.

Why have snipers? Just give rifles a scope and make them awesome at long range. HA up close, rifles at range. Perfect.

Why have a lightning? Just make MBT's able to be driven and gunned by the same person (oh wait...).

Why have Skyguards? We already have AA MAXes and our own aircraft to shoot down planes.

Why have medics? Just let everyone be able to patch each other up with improved med packs.

Why have a Sunderer? A Galaxy can fly. What kind of mad man would want to drive a bunch of people somewhere when they can FLY them there?

Game balance will always be somewhat arbitrary. You can combine a bunch of roles into one, or divide one role into many. You can have two different units who's roles have some overlap, but do it a little differently.

Again, this speaks nothing to whether or not a mech should be worked into the game balance, only that it could be.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

There isn't a role for half the stuff that was in Planetside if you shuffle things around a little.

I'm not saying they should make a niche for mechs to fill, just that they could if they wanted to.

Why have snipers? Just give rifles a scope and make them awesome at long range. HA up close, rifles at range. Perfect.

Why have a lightning? Just make MBT's able to be driven and gunned by the same person (oh wait...).

Why have Skyguards? We already have AA MAXes and our own aircraft to shoot down planes.

Why have medics? Just let everyone be able to patch each other up with improved med packs.

Why have a Sunderer? A Galaxy can fly. What kind of mad man would want to drive a bunch of people somewhere when they can FLY them there?

Game balance will always be somewhat arbitrary. You can combine a bunch of roles into one, or divide one role into many. You can have two different units who's roles have some overlap, but do it a little differently.

Again, this speaks nothing to whether or not a mech should be worked into the game balance, only that it could be.

Your post makes no sense, snipers are long range and rifles were medium range (FYI it's in the name); Heavy assault was close range (corridor), Medium was medium range (Courtyard) and sniper was long range (cross-SOI). The lethality also scaled with their role as well, HA was the most lethal whereas the bolt driver was easily avoidable given enough experience of the game as it was a supression weapon other than anything else.

With the lightning your point is just vapid, a lighting is the sacrifice you make for having a solo vehicle. It's lightly armored and lightly armed, 3 couldn't take down an MBT of 2 gunners. That's the whole idea of Planetside.

AA MAX and Skyguard? Ever heard of towers? What happened when you went to a new continent and you had to hold a tower as your first spawn point, pretty hard to get a vehicle there right? So we had the AA MAX which had zero mobility but you could pull one out of an equip term during an infantry battle, skyguard was for covering armored vehicles jesus christ, this is basic stuff.

Medics were there to revive and to heal, you couldn't heal in any reasonable amount of time with medipacks and medics are another teamplay gimmick designed to stop solo/CoD style one man armies who just regenerate their health in a few seconds.

As for the Sunderer, count how many dropship centres there are on the map. Sometimes you can sacrifice travelling as the crow flies and 30kph just to get quick and easy transport.

As for single person fully customisable mechs, what the hell role do they fill? A single man AA mech, well doesn't the skyguard do this fine and dandy without having scary role overlap? Don't we have the MAX for this? Swapping out with AV/AI also yields the same arguments. Not only that but the idea in Planetside and, from what I know, the general idea in basically everything centered around mechs is that they are just better tanks. In every movie, show and game they are portrayed as being faster, stronger, more versatile, more capable and better armed than every other vehicle on the battlefield and MBT's typically pose less of a threat to mechs than infantry do to modern armor currently.

Point is when something is so heavily troped in fiction, like mechs for example, people and developers design them around the trope. The entire aesthetic of a mech is that they are these uberunits, unfortunately there's no room in Planetside or any FPS for an 'uberunit' that's simply better than everything else.

[Captain1nsaneo]

22 pages... really?

So one man mechs, ever seen a wolverine from C&C? Basically a slightly taller MAX. Make them bigger, slower MAXs with armor akin to a lightning and no special abilities. They'll be used about as often as lightnings as they'll be obvious targets and lack the ability to cope with anything they're not specialized for. Can't see them as a good use of Dev time.

BFRs: The goal for BFRs was to create a Heavy Battle Tank (HBT). They succeeded. However, in doing so they broke two very important rules when introducing powerful weapons into a fairly balance environment. First, the new super weapon must be limited in who can get it. BFRs could be gotten by anyone and there was no limit to how many could be fielded at once. They attempted to limit through cert cost but that's just a paper barrier. Second, all powerful tools must take several people to operate. Think about it, MBTs take 2-3 people to crew, a BFR took just 1. This more than anything caused massive imbalance.

If walkers were to be looked at again I'd take the above into consideration along with survivability. Survivability isn't just HP and Shields. It's how fast battle can be joined and left. Quick example, the Gunship is massively powerful, takes a good sized crew to man, and requires a dropship center. Despite its massive health it currently is fairly balanced because the large number of people requires to man one prevents their mass use. However, when first released it had afterburners. The Gunship is slow and AB didn't help its top speed much, but it did help with its acceleration. The ability to get up to full speed quickly drastically increased the Gunships survivability making it much more powerful then it should optimally be. The AB has been removed and the Gunship is now much closer to being balanced as its survivability has dropped.

If I were asked to help design any new HBT, first I'd point to the Baneblade. Huge slow tank that takes a squad to fully man. Failing that I'd point to how Titans are managed, a person for weapons, a person for steering, and a person to control shields and direct power. Either way, as long as the ideas of limitation, more power more people, and survivability are adhered to whatever is produced will at least land on the dart board.

[2coolforu]

The galaxy gunship is balanced?

[Captain1nsaneo]

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

the Gunship is now much closer to being balanced as its survivability has dropped.

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

The galaxy gunship is balanced?

Closer is not balanced.

[BorisBlade]

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Closer is not balanced.

meh compare it to 6 reavers you could get with teh same manpower, heck even 5 is better. A few decent AA and you roast a gunship. I get my ass handed to me by gunships alot and i still think they are fine. Plenty of weaknesses and downsides and they need 6 people to function fully, at minimum 4 if you dont mind leaving one side unused and require a DSC. Plus the xp pinata when i kill em is very nice. They cant just run away like the cowardly reavers and skeeters when i start blasting away.

If you can tell me its better to have the gal than 6 reavers or skeeters than maybe we can talk. If you dont like em shooting you then take 6 of your guys and get AA and the thing will die instantly, heck take 3 of em, get AA then get 3 reavers, the AA will kill the gal then take the other 3 and roast everything else. Manpower is part of the balancing equation. Reavers may skip this part (too much power for the manpower involved) but most everything else follows it and it works well.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

The only thing that makes the mechs have any reason to be in the game is to shoehorn in some form of customization, yet we already have this in the shape of locked down vehicle upgrades, we also have weak spots (rear armor etc) and its clear that all main vehicles like MBT's and Galaxies are still limited to being effective in one defined role regardless of upgrades whereas the mechs have the ability to use AA/AV/AT, fly etc which is just stupidly diverse and ends up in role overlap and boring gameplay where every vehicle on the battlefield is the same thing with either swapped out AT/AV or AA unlike the true combined ops battles that relied on teamwork and not just swapping out your own weapons depending on whether another mech, aircraft or infantry killed you.

I agree with that mentality about customization overload. My initial post was thinking in terms of introducing AA/AV/AI through the forms of different weapons. For instance, AV as medium rate heavy caliber rifles (micro cannons essentially) on the arms or AI as targeted mortar shells on the shoulders. Been wondering if such features are too much, and part of me says they are. Sticking to like only high caliber AV on the arms and battery launched rockets on the shoulders might be a much saner system leaving advanced customization options to the tanks.

It's important to remember that there are tons of weapons to do AA, AV, and AI. Different vehicles can utilize different ones with different strengths and advantages and trade-offs. As an example while one AA can be offensive long range combat another can be short range defensive. (Slower flak or short range missiles). AI has been discussed in older threads. Machine guns, mortar shells, grenade launchers, lasers, etc. Lots of choices with different gameplay ideas kind of. (lasers being instant and machine guns dropping with gravity and such and requiring leading a target).

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

So one man mechs, ever seen a wolverine from C&C? Basically a slightly taller MAX. Make them bigger, slower MAXs with armor akin to a lightning and no special abilities. They'll be used about as often as lightnings as they'll be obvious targets and lack the ability to cope with anything they're not specialized for. Can't see them as a good use of Dev time.

Pretty much what I described in the first post. However, the armor argument was for survivability. You might be taking damage or immobilized for the most part but you're not out of the fight. I've mentioned this before that I like giving people time to react. The armor thing is more of a balance issue. It's really hard to tell how long vehicles will last in the new game so I'm going to stop referencing hit counts in PS1 terms.

You mentioned no abilities. I'm more in the camp of giving everyone abilities. It really opens up choices for players. Giving a mech less abilities would be an option. For instance, I want a tank to have grenade launchers (smoke, frag, plasma) as an upgrade for CQC threats and for helping friendlies push forward. (Also want momentary stealth for tanks since it would be cool to see a tank cloak for like 5 seconds). Giving a mech the ability for momentary shields or flight powered by a single bar the discharges after use and costs resources to upgrade every time isn't unreasonable if balanced correctly. The main idea though should be to give players a ton of choices since it increases the skill of the game. (5 choices and you have 5 seconds to decide what to do in a situation kind of stuff).

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

BFRs: The goal for BFRs was to create a Heavy Battle Tank (HBT).

Yeah and I disagree with that with regards to mech chassis (that is probably obvious by now). Never much cared for the "Medium Battle Tank" idea. It should just be "Tank" reflecting there is no superior version for AV damage. That is the tank has the highest AV DPS.

[Grognard]

Interesting.

First, its TIMBERWOLF, aff? (referencing "MadCat")

Second, I HATE BFRs, they give mechs the worst name "evar...", but I love mechs...

Third, I would like to see a version of "mech" in PS2, but like many have said, it must not invalidate any other vehicle, especially MAXs and Tanks, nor be overpowered. I do, however, think there is enough room/creativity to implement such a thing without alienating half the playerbase.

[VioletZero]

Wow, I didn't expect such bile for such a cool idea as having Mechs.

They must have been really poorly implemented in PS1.

That said, Mechs are awesome. Though, I do agree that the implementation will be challenging given the way that vehicles are put into the game. But I'm sure we could work this out...

My idea would be to have it be walking, weaker tanks with jumpjets for traversing mountains or other obstacles.