New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2 - Page 7 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: where you can pick your friends AND their noses!
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

View Poll Results: Would you like a single person mech in the game? (Please read the thread before posti
I don't like single person bipedal mechs and don't want them in the game 153 75.37%
I want single person mechs, but don't like this implementation. (Explain below) 11 5.42%
I support this implementation 28 13.79%
Other Reason (Explain below) 11 5.42%
Voters: 203. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-07-23, 02:44 AM   [Ignore Me] #91
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Well-stated. As you state forum posters are not a random sample of the population. But they are the only sample we have to work with at this time.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 03:16 AM   [Ignore Me] #92
NCLynx
Major
 
NCLynx's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


1 man mechs no matter how strong or weak still takes away from team gameplay IMO.

Personally I think BFRs would have been much better if it was 3 gunners 1 driver. 1 gunner for each gun on the front and then the gunner for the top gun that's there.
NCLynx is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 03:18 AM   [Ignore Me] #93
Aractain
Major
 
Aractain's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


mechs are just vehicles. 1 man mech = lightning. The problem is to get a cool and good feeling mech then have to be big and that means powerful so 1 man powerful mech = dumbass.

So yeah if the proposed "heavy tank" ideas were done BFRs would have worked, instead they did dumbass.
Aractain is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 03:20 AM   [Ignore Me] #94
exLupo
Contributor
Sergeant Major
 
exLupo's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
But they are the only sample we have to work with at this time.
True. Well, that and the cb testers. One of my favorite things to do when I'm in an alpha/beta for a popular game is to lurk on public forums and look at the absolutely ludicrous theory discussions that go one. I'm sure there are some testers lurking on PSU that are having a big ol' laugh at all of us.
__________________
There is no better cause to fight than the simple need that blood be spilled. Do not fight because you receive reward or praise. Fight because that other bastard exists solely to die beneath the heel of your boot.

And that was that.
exLupo is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 06:13 AM   [Ignore Me] #95
captainkapautz
First Lieutenant
 
captainkapautz's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
[...]Regarding not liking mechs, I understand. Some people find them silly.[...]
It's not that I dislike Mechs, it's just that I don't really like them in PlanetSide.

I dunno it's just that I find them "unrealistic" for a lack of a better term, seeing as most "standard" equipment in PS could be possible with future tech, but definitely not the bipedal robots of doom.
captainkapautz is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 06:37 AM   [Ignore Me] #96
CutterJohn
Colonel
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Magic hover tech is far more unrealistic than robots of doom. All thats really limiting legs is the AI to control them. The mechanisms we could create now.

We could make a hovertank, but it'd be the air cushioned variety, which are loud inefficient, and have severe weight limitations. The magical repulsor field is completely fabricated from sci fi.
CutterJohn is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 08:31 AM   [Ignore Me] #97
opticalshadow
First Sergeant
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by NCLynx View Post
1 man mechs no matter how strong or weak still takes away from team gameplay IMO.

Personally I think BFRs would have been much better if it was 3 gunners 1 driver. 1 gunner for each gun on the front and then the gunner for the top gun that's there.
a 4 person vehicles would have actually come close to fixing one of the main problems with BFR's, being that it actually took 4 people to have that kind of power not just one or 2. but even with that the balence of the sustain/dmg output as insane on release, sony clearly did not test this properaly and took far far to long to fix it.
opticalshadow is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 09:14 AM   [Ignore Me] #98
Infektion
Sergeant Major
 
Infektion's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Max's are technically single person mechs, they are an electronically exo suit.
__________________
I remember when my PC was awesome...
N C Infektion
I'm a REAL VET, not a green horn who bought his beta ticket.
Infektion is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 09:28 AM   [Ignore Me] #99
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Aractain View Post
mechs are just vehicles. 1 man mech = lightning. The problem is to get a cool and good feeling mech then have to be big and that means powerful so 1 man powerful mech = dumbass.

So yeah if the proposed "heavy tank" ideas were done BFRs would have worked, instead they did dumbass.
I disagree. I don't see why they have to be powerful to be good. The design I described makes them weak while still keeping everything cool about them. Balancing the coolness with ways to defeat them was the whole basis of this thread.

I think that's the problem with most people posting against this. What they want is an uber mech again with multiple people. SOE tried that and it failed. Creating a simple small mech that can be controlled by one person and is easily damaged by other players is a really nice compromise which allows infantry to attack and destroy it from afar. Basically if you get hit with a decimator you know your probably going to lose use of an arm or other component. It forces players to play tactically with hit and run attacks.

Also regarding team gameplay it's not really powerful enough to stand on it's own. It would need to heal and stay next to players to protect itself.

Designing a walking galaxy gunship is just a horrible idea, and it kind of shocks me that after seeing BFRs that you would suggest that. I mean 4 persons? Seriously?
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 09:36 AM   [Ignore Me] #100
2coolforu
First Lieutenant
 
2coolforu's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


A hovertank is FAR more realistic than a mech - large armored mechs will never be introduced to any army ever, not even when we have hovertanks, las-cannons and anti-matter engines and it's a simple matter of surface area to volume ratio's and how visible it is.

For example consider a tank, it has a low profile presenting a small target to the enemy and allowing it to hide and go hull down while presenting a small area for the enemy to strike, it also means that it can point its smallest area (the front of the tank) towards its enemy and have this be the most heavily armored point allowing maximum survivability.

(1) Surface area to volume ratio - A tank is effectively rectangular with a relatively low surface area to volume ratio, this is important as it means a set amount of armor can be a lot thicker on this vehicle than it can be on a mech which has a much higher surface area to volume ratio. as it has low volume high surface area parts like the legs, arms, cockpit etc, you simply couldn't armor all these areas to any useful extent without having a vehicle that sinks into the mud.

(2) Mobility - Legs aren't a particularly great way for a machine to get around, wheels and tracks are better ways to apply force and a gigantic vehicle on legs would apply all its weight into the ground over a very small surface area - it would get bogged down easily and even if it sinks a small amount into the ground the friction would be huge. It's very hard to get to high speeds on legs and if one gets taken out you are in trouble nor will a giant mech be moving very fast at all given power to weight ratios.

(3) Weaponry - A giant mech isn't a great mounting for weaponry, there's a reason tanks have one 120/125 mm cannon not two 90mm cannons. The power of the cannon generally grows exponentially with its bore, its better to have a 120mm cannon that is definitely going to penetrate an enemy armored vehicles front armor than two 90mm's that will have zero effect. A mech would also lack a turret and instead have to mount the weaponry on some mechanism that allowed them to turn similar to what SPG's used in WW2, however the reason we don't use these is because they wear out extremely fast and are pretty inaccurate. Lacking a turret would also mean the mech would have to turn to face targets and would lack any form of gyroscopic stabilization preventing it's ability to fire on the move.

Not only that but a mech is pretty tall which means weaponry near the top would create a huge moment around the feet at the bottom multiplying recoil massively but a tank has a very low center of mass and a small moment around its base making it a very stable firing platform.

(4) Complexity - Just because you can make something incredibly complex doesn't mean that you should, a tank is simple and if something goes wrong you can tell what it is. Not much can go wrong with its tracks or engine and battlefield repairs can be made, however legs would require complex machinery, hydraulics or other complex forms of mechanics to move which makes repairs harder and creates more potential problems.


Basically there are many reasons outside of technological limitations as to why mechs will not be used, the most likely form of mech is a human scale suit for soldiers to wear - nothing more than an exo-skeleton simply because the surface area to volume will matter less at lower sizes and power to weight will be vastly higher meaning a human could lift more. But as battle vehicles they would be laughably useless and would fail against any equally technologically advanced tank at the time.

A hovertank however would be insanely useful, it could cross rivers and boggy terrain and there are mechanisms that could create this. Perhaps the Vanu have knowledge of room-temperature superconduction which would allow them to levitate tanks pretty easily.
2coolforu is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 10:11 AM   [Ignore Me] #101
Redshift
Major
 
Redshift's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
Magic hover tech is far more unrealistic than robots of doom. All thats really limiting legs is the AI to control them. The mechanisms we could create now.
If you could program AI to control legs that work well the you can sure as hell program AI to make the vehicle unmanned.

if it's realism you want we'd all be in bunkers with UAV's shooting eachother :P
__________________

Last edited by Redshift; 2011-07-23 at 11:13 AM. Reason: spelling
Redshift is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 10:24 AM   [Ignore Me] #102
Raldath
Private
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
Noobs are like Old People...They complain to everyone who will listen.

I've fallen and can't get up. Someone make me a "I win button".
My new favorite quote.
Raldath is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-07-23, 11:14 AM   [Ignore Me] #103
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by 2coolforu View Post
A hovertank is FAR more realistic than a mech - large armored mechs will never be introduced to any army ever, not even when we have hovertanks, las-cannons and anti-matter engines and it's a simple matter of surface area to volume ratio's and how visible it is.

For example consider a tank, it has a low profile presenting a small target to the enemy and allowing it to hide and go hull down while presenting a small area for the enemy to strike, it also means that it can point its smallest area (the front of the tank) towards its enemy and have this be the most heavily armored point allowing maximum survivability.

(1) Surface area to volume ratio - A tank is effectively rectangular with a relatively low surface area to volume ratio, this is important as it means a set amount of armor can be a lot thicker on this vehicle than it can be on a mech which has a much higher surface area to volume ratio. as it has low volume high surface area parts like the legs, arms, cockpit etc, you simply couldn't armor all these areas to any useful extent without having a vehicle that sinks into the mud.

(2) Mobility - Legs aren't a particularly great way for a machine to get around, wheels and tracks are better ways to apply force and a gigantic vehicle on legs would apply all its weight into the ground over a very small surface area - it would get bogged down easily and even if it sinks a small amount into the ground the friction would be huge. It's very hard to get to high speeds on legs and if one gets taken out you are in trouble nor will a giant mech be moving very fast at all given power to weight ratios.

(3) Weaponry - A giant mech isn't a great mounting for weaponry, there's a reason tanks have one 120/125 mm cannon not two 90mm cannons. The power of the cannon generally grows exponentially with its bore, its better to have a 120mm cannon that is definitely going to penetrate an enemy armored vehicles front armor than two 90mm's that will have zero effect. A mech would also lack a turret and instead have to mount the weaponry on some mechanism that allowed them to turn similar to what SPG's used in WW2, however the reason we don't use these is because they wear out extremely fast and are pretty inaccurate. Lacking a turret would also mean the mech would have to turn to face targets and would lack any form of gyroscopic stabilization preventing it's ability to fire on the move.

Not only that but a mech is pretty tall which means weaponry near the top would create a huge moment around the feet at the bottom multiplying recoil massively but a tank has a very low center of mass and a small moment around its base making it a very stable firing platform.

(4) Complexity - Just because you can make something incredibly complex doesn't mean that you should, a tank is simple and if something goes wrong you can tell what it is. Not much can go wrong with its tracks or engine and battlefield repairs can be made, however legs would require complex machinery, hydraulics or other complex forms of mechanics to move which makes repairs harder and creates more potential problems.


Basically there are many reasons outside of technological limitations as to why mechs will not be used, the most likely form of mech is a human scale suit for soldiers to wear - nothing more than an exo-skeleton simply because the surface area to volume will matter less at lower sizes and power to weight will be vastly higher meaning a human could lift more. But as battle vehicles they would be laughably useless and would fail against any equally technologically advanced tank at the time.

A hovertank however would be insanely useful, it could cross rivers and boggy terrain and there are mechanisms that could create this. Perhaps the Vanu have knowledge of room-temperature superconduction which would allow them to levitate tanks pretty easily.
Wow, I'm impressed at this. Makes sense. I'd add to it the fact that tanks can shield infantry from enemy fire (the purpose for which they were originally invented). A mech can't really shield anyone from anything.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 12:11 PM   [Ignore Me] #104
CutterJohn
Colonel
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by 2coolforu View Post
(1) Surface area to volume ratio - A tank is effectively rectangular with a relatively low surface area to volume ratio, this is important as it means a set amount of armor can be a lot thicker on this vehicle than it can be on a mech which has a much higher surface area to volume ratio. as it has low volume high surface area parts like the legs, arms, cockpit etc, you simply couldn't armor all these areas to any useful extent without having a vehicle that sinks into the mud.
Indeed. They wouldn't replace tanks. They would exist in addition to them, to go places tanks can't. They would have less armor, and would, as you say, want to avoid mud/soft ground like wheeled vehicles.

(2) Mobility - Legs aren't a particularly great way for a machine to get around, wheels and tracks are better ways to apply force and a gigantic vehicle on legs would apply all its weight into the ground over a very small surface area - it would get bogged down easily and even if it sinks a small amount into the ground the friction would be huge. It's very hard to get to high speeds on legs and if one gets taken out you are in trouble nor will a giant mech be moving very fast at all given power to weight ratios.
On smooth flat surfaces, you are correct. There are plenty of obstacles in terrain where the superior maneuverability of a mech would be a significant aid.

(3) Weaponry - A giant mech isn't a great mounting for weaponry, there's a reason tanks have one 120/125 mm cannon not two 90mm cannons. The power of the cannon generally grows exponentially with its bore, its better to have a 120mm cannon that is definitely going to penetrate an enemy armored vehicles front armor than two 90mm's that will have zero effect. A mech would also lack a turret and instead have to mount the weaponry on some mechanism that allowed them to turn similar to what SPG's used in WW2, however the reason we don't use these is because they wear out extremely fast and are pretty inaccurate. Lacking a turret would also mean the mech would have to turn to face targets and would lack any form of gyroscopic stabilization preventing it's ability to fire on the move.
The body could turret like mechwarrior does. And large bore cannon are nice if you can use them, but not the only option. Missiles that can kill tanks are commonly carried by infantry. Also, since their niche is rough terrain, they can expect to not encounter a whole lot of armor. Smaller cannon(like the 30mm on the APCs) would be suitable for anti infantry and air defense work.

If the form is like a standard mech, then the arms would stabilize the weapons if needed.

Not only that but a mech is pretty tall which means weaponry near the top would create a huge moment around the feet at the bottom multiplying recoil massively but a tank has a very low center of mass and a small moment around its base making it a very stable firing platform.
Missiles = no recoil, and its guns are smaller, meant for AA, AI, or light AV work.

(4) Complexity - Just because you can make something incredibly complex doesn't mean that you should, a tank is simple and if something goes wrong you can tell what it is. Not much can go wrong with its tracks or engine and battlefield repairs can be made, however legs would require complex machinery, hydraulics or other complex forms of mechanics to move which makes repairs harder and creates more potential problems.
True enough now. In the future its impossible to say. Many weapons we use today, especially aircraft, but also tanks and APCs, would be considered extremely complex by the standards of 50 years ago.


A mech would not be a tank. Stop comparing it to one. Because of issues with foot loading, it would be a small vehicle, intended for infantry support operations in rough/city environments or scouting work. Its possible armaments would not include large bore tank cannon. It would field missiles, light cannons, and/or gatling guns. Its complexity would be an issue, but being the only vehicle that can keep up with infantry in certain more extreme environments, it could have a modest niche.

If it could swap gun mounts for proper arms, it could also prove an extremely useful tool behind the lines as a general utility vehicle for moving loads, preparing fortifications, clearing debris, etc. Tbh, thats probably where it would start out at.
CutterJohn is offline  
Old 2011-07-23, 12:14 PM   [Ignore Me] #105
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Wow, I'm impressed at this. Makes sense. I'd add to it the fact that tanks can shield infantry from enemy fire (the purpose for which they were originally invented). A mech can't really shield anyone from anything.
I don't think he was arguing against mechs in the game. He was arguing that in the real world they wouldn't work. You'd be hard pressed to resort to bringing realism into a debate about sci-fi vehicles.

Then again I addressed those concerns by making it weak on its light components and more compact. It's also been addressed that there can only be a 20% max difference so this is a balancing act for all vehicles. The shield could protect friendlies momentarily or if it crouched down, but honestly that would be a huge sacrifice since a few tank shells would severely damage everything. Bullets even would do a lot depending on the component hit.
Sirisian is offline  
Closed Thread
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Tags
mech

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.