Could BFRs work better with the new resource system? - Page 7

EZShot · 2012-03-16, 03:53 AM

This thread is a minefield.

@PS1 "SuperVets": Think you all need to solidify this idea in your heads. The people in this thread calling for a review of their capabilities and style of implementation are doing nothing more than brainstorming.

Gonna say it again for the people who don't read any post with the words 'BFR' & 'Want' in them. They don't have to be huge, over-armoured, overpowered flying fortresses - you could have them as simply an alternative to fixed AI turrets in the field.

@Rest of thread: Yes the MAX exsists, but I think there could be a place for a small walker that can't enter inner bases like a MAX can. I'd have to make it clear that I feel that whatever it is should only have chainguns similar to that of the Reaver in the old game.

Starcraft 1. Goliath-ish. Small (10-12ft), Medium Speed, Medium Armour, Low Firepower, Fairly High Resource Cost (at least higher than MAX Armour)

Admit it guys, when you heard they were gonna put "Walking Robots" in to PS1 there was a little excitment wasn't there? If for no other reason than that they were adding more content?

Also, Don't just tell me to go and play BF2142 - I've tried involving myself with BF games almost everytime there is a new one and can never get on with them. Also Mechwarrior is wank.

SgtMAD · 2012-03-16, 05:15 AM

when BFR's were released,there was a mass exodus from PS,more ppl disappeared due to them than any other buff/nerf before or since.

if you want to play mech warrior go find a game that has that feature and leave us alone, we have been through this before unlike a bunch of the ppl in this thread defending BFRs

I went from having 60 plus ppl logging every day to 5 active members in less than a week after bfrs were added and Ht wasn't the only outfit that saw the same result,it was wide spread.

Atheosim · 2012-03-16, 05:19 AM

Okay, I'm going to very briefly summarize what the fuck is going on in the "BFR" debate and I think it might clear up some things for some people:

The term "BFR" applies solely and only to the implementation of bipedal vehicles in Planetside 1. READ ON:

People are using the term "BFR" in place of the much more appropriate term "bipedal vehicle" or "mech" or "walker" or any other combination of letters and syllables that defines a bipedal vehicle.

I think few to none of us want actual BFRs i.e. the implementation of bipedal vehicles in Planetside 1. What we do want is a bipedal vehicle which can be as stupid as loading large and heavy boxes of ammo into a galaxy gunship or as stupid as being flying, single manned, unstoppable, nuke everything death fortresses.

Please let me clarify further: No to "BFRs". Yes to bipedal vehicles.

For the love of god get the idea of BFRs out of your head in this discussion. Sure, keep it in the back of your head that they need to be balanced properly but for fucks sake bipedal vehicle does not immediately nor necessarily translate to overpowered uberdeath clusterfuck launcher.

BFR= Planetside 1's overpowered population murdering dipshit mistake.

Mech= MOTHERFUCKING ANYTHING ELSE.

Please stop using the term BFR for anything but Planetside 1's implementation of a bipedal vehicle.

Vancha · 2012-03-16, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

That'd be the buggy role. I'm not in the know enough to defend the buggy. I didn't use the harasser or the AA variant whatever it was called enough to say if it was bad or good.

From what I used it for it was just to be noob friendly like the ATV but with one squadmate. The wraith did better than it for scouting and the guns on the harasser were outclassed by nearly any MA while still being vulnerable to AV weapons.

Buggies are tough, because we don't know how they'd be implemented into PS2. I'd say they're more assault vehicles than support (repairs, respawn, heals, equipment etc.), but you've made me wonder whether we should be conflating scouting and recon...

And yes, harassers weren't great, but again I don't think using PS1 to decide what'd fit in PS2 is a great idea. There wouldn't be multiple buggies in PS2, for example...Each empire would just get one to be customized to the player's liking.

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

I agree with you that scouting needs to be much more fleshed out in Planetside 2 and have even made a thread on such. But I don't think implementing new vehicle types for that express purpose is the best way to solve it rather than rewarding players that seek that as their preferred play style.

Sorry, can you reword that? What reward do you have in mind?

Also, I only used scouting as an example. If you look on the first page of this thread, I listed a few other roles for such a vehicle. My biggest point was that there's probably plenty of holes it could fill and plenty of new gameplay experiences it could offer compared to things that are already in the game (obviously that's a guess though, seeing as we have yet to play it).

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

when BFR's were released,there was a mass exodus from PS,more ppl disappeared due to them than any other buff/nerf before or since.

if you want to play mech warrior go find a game that has that feature and leave us alone, we have been through this before unlike a bunch of the ppl in this thread defending BFRs

I went from having 60 plus ppl logging every day to 5 active members in less than a week after bfrs were added and Ht wasn't the only outfit that saw the same result,it was wide spread.

Do you understand that the physical shape of BFRs (a mech) and what made them terrible are two separate things? Do you understand that if you gave a BFR the stats of a lightning, or the stats of an ATV, it'd be fine? There's nothing innate about a mech or even a PS1 BFR that's good or bad, it's simply the visual representation of a clump of stats.

Mackenz · 2012-03-16, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

They are graphical assets. The only 'role' is what is given to them, which can be anything at all. Cool is the only reason to have any graphics whatsoever. What does the graphical representation of treads or tires or infantry legs bring to the game? Gameplay would be just as functional with featureless bounding boxes of various sizes fighting.

Cool is the only reason to have them(and "I don't think they are cool" the only valid argument against them), because what something looks like has absolutely zero impact on how it functions in a game, and is completely arbitrary.

*Note: I don't actually want a super vehicle though. I just have zero issue with the concept of mechs and think it fits well in futuristic settings.

BFRs didn't ruin PS1. That little database file that listed BFRs OP stats did it. Shall we rage against database files? Its just as ridiculous of an argument.

Just graphical assets? That's all you think it takes? Surely you jest.

BFRs ruined PS1 for me. It might of not for you but it did for me - you cannot argue against that because it is fact for me. Reasons:

BFRs were poorly thought out and implemented. They didn't fit any story that I could ever relate to;
In putting something in like that while the community was shouting about issues that were far more important told me that SOE had no clue. Things like say a better command leadership structure or mission system that is in PS2.

It told me SOE wasn't listening and didn't give a flying fig what the community was trying to tell it. So it wasted a bunch of dev time on something that was worse than useless while easier and much more useful stuff went begging. Soul crushing.

And let's review the 'They are graphical assets' comment. Higby said in one of the interviews that it would take 6 months to put in vehicle animations. And that is something a far greater number of folks actually want!

I don't want any BFR concept (or mech - but note this thread's heading) before the devs address holes in PS2 that will be revealed in beta/release. This will be identified by both devs and the community.

And dammit, this whole 'cool' is a sufficient reason, or 'it is science fiction' tranche of reasoning? What a crock. Let's use Arthur C Clarke's definition of magic and technology. Since it is 'cool', or it is 'science fiction', how about a small handle that when you click a button turns into a LIGHT SWORD! Or how about this resource called 'mana' that allows you to shoot FIREBALLS and LIGHTNING from your hands!

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

I really hope the beta is soon so we can start focusing on the stuff that will make the game enjoyable and long lived, versus just jamming in stuff because it is 'cool' or 'science fiction' without really making a case for what role it supposed to play in the game. And no, I have read every post in the thread and no definitive role has been described. Lots of maybes and could be, but so far BFRs/mechs as described is a weapon looking for a definitive purpose (other than 'cool').

Hamma · 2012-03-16, 09:38 AM

I know it's hard in such an emotional topic for PlanetSide players but let's try not to rip each others heads off and shit down each others necks. Civil debate is achievable.

Geist · 2012-03-16, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

Just graphical assets? That's all you think it takes? Surely you jest.

BFRs ruined PS1 for me. It might of not for you but it did for me - you cannot argue against that because it is fact for me. Reasons:[*]BFRs were poorly thought out and implemented. They didn't fit any story I could ever relate to;

Haha, I can tell his comment completely flew over your head. He's talking about the stats that the BFR had, the little folder that said "BFRs have Uber weapons, shields, and armor...and can fly!!!!". The fact that BFRs were bipedal giant robots had no fucking impact AT ALL on the balance of PS1. The completely overpowered armor and weapons did however.

[*]In putting something in like that while the community was shouting about issues that were far more important told me that SOE had no clue. Things like say a better command leadership structure or mission system that is in PS2.
It told me SOE wasn't listening and didn't give a flying fig what the community was trying to tell it. So it wasted a bunch of dev time on something that was worse than useless while easier and much more useful stuff went begging. Soul crushing.

And let's review the 'They are graphical assets' comment. Higby said in one of the interviews that it would take 6 months to put in vehicle animations. And that is something a far greater number of folks actually want!

I don't want any BFR concept (or mech - but note this thread's heading) before the devs address holes in PS2 that will be revealed in beta/release. This will be identified by both devs and the community.

Are we saying we want mechs at launch? Not that I have seen. Of course there are more important things that need to be worked on, but that doesn't mean we can't come up with things we would like to see in the future.

And dammit, this whole 'cool' is a sufficient reason, or 'it is science fiction' tranche of reasoning? What a crock. Let's use Arthur C Clarke's definition of magic and technology. Since it is 'cool', or it is 'science fiction', how about a small handle that when you click a button turns into a LIGHT SWORD! Or how about this resource called 'mana' that allows you to shoot FIREBALLS and LIGHTNING from your hands!

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

What the hell do lightsabers and lightning hands have anything to do with Planetside?

I really hope the beta is soon so we can start focusing on the stuff that will make the game enjoyable and long lived, versus just jamming in stuff because it is 'cool' or 'science fiction' without really making a case for what role it supposed to play in the game. And no, I have read every post in the thread and no definitive role has been described. Lots of maybes and could be, but so far BFRs/mechs as described is a weapon looking for a definitive purpose (other than 'cool').

I'm sorry, I wasn't under the impression that developers stop everything to work on every interesting idea some fan makes a thread about. No shit it's a weapon looking for a definitive purpose, that's what brainstorming threads are for. SO WE CAN FUCKING FIND IT.

I'm sorry BFRs touched you as a child, but some of us are trying to be constructive and actually add something to to the discussion.

Vancha · 2012-03-16, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

And no, I have read every post in the thread and no definitive role has been described. Lots of maybes and could be, but so far BFRs/mechs as described is a weapon looking for a definitive purpose (other than 'cool').

How do you expect people to assign a definitive role to something in a game they haven't played? Prior to the GDC video barely anything in this forum was definitive; the majority was speculation.

Beyond things we know to exist in the game, what exactly do you expect anyone to be definitive on?

StraitDumpinSMF · 2012-03-16, 10:34 AM

Baddie
Forum
Retards

I'm gonna farm all of you.

Firefly · 2012-03-16, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

BFR's were the straw that broke the camels back. If they didn't ruin PS but they bloody well did enough damage to game to leave this lasting impression.

This

Originally Posted by bigcracker

Mechs could work but because of what happen in PS1 its just gonna leave people with the fear of a repeat.

and this.

The damage was done. Whether you like BFRs or not is irrelevant - so many players left Planetside because of BFRs. Look up the term "Planetside" and "BFR" and a majority of the things you will see will inevitably focus on "I left Planetside because of BFRs" or "BFRs killed Planetside". Whether they were the coup de grace or not is also irrelevant - popular perception is reality, and that reality becomes "BFRs are reviled". Putting them back in the game will essentially kill off a huge percentage of the possible player-base. Games don't succeed on how cool they are (and shut the fuck up about how they were just a datafile or artwork) - they succeed based on the number of players and the revenue they bring in.

On a personal level I liked them. I love big stompy robots - I love BattleTech and MechWarrior. But they don't belong in Planetside simply because of the horrible blow they struck to the original game. Devs who came after the BFR-era devs basically said as much - I recall a quote [paraphrased] from one of the devs, cannot remember who: "we can't remove them from the game or the box art because of legal issues that basically means false advertising."

roguy · 2012-03-16, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Firefly

Putting them back in the game will essentially kill off a huge percentage of the possible player-base. Games don't succeed on how cool they are (and shut the fuck up about how they were just a datafile or artwork) - they succeed based on the number of players and the revenue they bring in.

You're gonna hate what I'm gonna type but whatever the case, you need to deal with the fact that vets of an almost 10 year old underrated game like most of us here arn't going to be a "huge percentage of the possible player base". There's room for us to be the "core-fanbase" or the "vocal minority" but I mean seriously, if SOE doesn't rake in 10 times as many players as PS1 did for a modern flagship AAA game they might aswell cancel the game right now. On top of that, this thread does a good job of showing the community being split down the middle on this issue, otherwise we wouldn't be flaming each other.

The fact of the matter is that mechs are making a comeback this year with Mechwarrior, Hawken, Mass effect 3 and even Halo 4. In the case of Bioware and Bungie, you can be sure they "focus-grouped" the crap out of their games and they know that's what players today want. Hell, people here have made it abundently clear that that's what WE wanted before they broke PS1.

Somehow, you don't see me or anyone flame and complain about urban warfare in PS2 because the caverns of PS1 were horse-shit do you?

And besides, who the hell here is not going to play PS2 just because of ONE feature? What competition are they going to bring their money to instead? COD? BF3? The newly announced medal of honor game?
Let's get real.

nomotog · 2012-03-16, 11:16 AM

The idea of the BFR ,as it was in PS1, dosen't really fit in PS2. (Walking tanks could.) The BFR was meant to be over powered an rare. The idea being to add some peeks and valleys to the normal balanced combat, but PS2 is going to have that from the start. Your going to have weapons and upgrades that will be powerful and rare from the resource cost. A BFR will be kind of redundant when you can upgrade a tank into BFR power.

Firefly · 2012-03-16, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by roguy

The fact of the matter is that mechs are making a comeback this year with Mechwarrior, Hawken, Mass effect 3 and even Halo 4. In the case of Bioware and Bungie, you can be sure they "focus-grouped" the crap out of their games and they know that's what players today want.

Those are 'Mech-combat games, at least in the case of the MechWarrior/BattleTech line and Hawken. Those games cater to and centre around the 'Mech from a simulator standpoint. In those universes, NOTHING can touch a 'Mech except another 'Mech. I could argue that Mass Effect had a decent 'Mech element as well, but I'm talking strictly about Hawken and the MW IPs. Planetside is not a 'Mech-combat simulator. It is a first-person shooter. It has a fair amount of vehicles. 'Mechs should not be one of them.

You and your small vocal minority among a small playerbase for an underrated niche shooter of 10yrs past are exactly that: a small but vocal minority. Do not mistake the fifty-fifty split on PSU as having spoken for every single Planetside player that ever was - this is a very small community. It is not an accurate judge of metrics, just an accurate cross-section of varying beliefs. A huge portion of people who ragequit Planetside specifically because of BFRs aren't on PSU, nor are the rest of that small vocal minority who liked the BFR.

As for Core Combat and urban warfare, there's no fucking way you could EVER convince me, not even when Core Combat was released on day one, that it was urban warfare. It wasn't even CQB - base fights were more CQB than the Crap Caverns. Sure, SOE tried to bill Core Combat as urban warfare or urban combat or whatever the shit their catchy title was supposed to be. Clearly they failed.

As I said - I liked the BFRs. I was all fired up, as a BattleTech fanboi, to get in the cockpit and roll with a lance of BFRs. To this day I still wish they'd been done right. But the unarguable fact of the matter is, BFRs left a bad taste in the collective mouths of a significant portion of Planetside's population. It had such a negative impact that Smedley himself said over a year ago, before anyone asked, "No BFRs will not be in the game". Without being asked, unprompted, unsolicited, unscripted.

Had they been implemented properly, and not had such a negative impact on the playerbase as a whole? Sure, put them in. But because the connotation is so negative, it would be a bad move.

roguy · 2012-03-16, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

Those are 'Mech-combat games, at least in the case of the MechWarrior/BattleTech line and Hawken. Those games cater to and centre around the 'Mech from a simulator standpoint. In those universes, NOTHING can touch a 'Mech except another 'Mech. I could argue that Mass Effect had a decent 'Mech element as well, but I'm talking strictly about Hawken and the MW IPs. Planetside is not a 'Mech-combat simulator. It is a first-person shooter. It has a fair amount of vehicles. 'Mechs should not be one of them.

Ok I'll list better examples then: Halo 4, Section 8 and the upcoming BF2143 have mechs. All those games comply to your definition of being first-person-shooters with a fair amount of vehicles that arn't mech combat simulators.
I'd like to remind you though, that the point of the argument ISN'T that just because they did it PS2 should too but that mechs in sci-fi are mainstream. And if the majority of gamers didn't want them, mechs wouldn't be in every game that's somewhat comparable to planetside.

Originally Posted by Firefly

You and your small vocal minority among a small playerbase for an underrated niche shooter of 10yrs past are exactly that: a small but vocal minority. Do not mistake the fifty-fifty split on PSU as having spoken for every single Planetside player that ever was - this is a very small community. It is not an accurate judge of metrics, just an accurate cross-section of varying beliefs. A huge portion of people who ragequit Planetside specifically because of BFRs aren't on PSU, nor are the rest of that small vocal minority who liked the BFR.

Unless you're holding something back, it's the only judge of metrics that either of us have on hand. You're right, it's not accurate, but if you have a better one I'd sure like to see it before you proclaim knowing who the vocal minority is.

For your information, I also quit PS1 after BFRs but as you can see, I didn't develop somekind of childhood Post-Traumatic-Syndrome over the whole idea.

Originally Posted by Firefly

Sure, SOE tried to bill Core Combat as urban warfare or urban combat or whatever the shit their catchy title was supposed to be. Clearly they failed.

Yeah just like they billed BFRs as an addition to enhance the combined-arms aspect of Planetside 1.
Clearly they also failed that.
Clearly you also failed at convincing me how both examples differ in that they were both based on good ideas (mech combat, urban warfare), initially supported by the community, with all sorts of wonderful promises that failed to live up to them ONLY because of horrid implementation.

Originally Posted by Firefly

Had they been implemented properly, and not had such a negative impact on the playerbase as a whole? Sure, put them in. But because the connotation is so negative, it would be a bad move.

Wich brings me back to my arguments that:

1-) If PS2 has any hope of being commercially viable, it will have to have a large enough playerbase that the total amount Planetside 1 vets won't have much of an impact on the playerbase as a whole. Let alone the number of players that have held a grudge for the past 8 years AND seem to be allergic to any form of change (Ironsights, Squad leader spawning etc...).

2-) The new customers PS2 is hoping to attract (mainstream gamers, sci fi FPSers) want Mechs. Why would i think this? Because seeing them vote with their wallets and seeing the market trend today (examples that I have already given), facts seem to point to "Mechs = more customers" and not "Mechs = less customers".

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

They are graphical assets. The only 'role' is what is given to them, which can be anything at all. Cool is the only reason to have any graphics whatsoever. What does the graphical representation of treads or tires or infantry legs bring to the game? Gameplay would be just as functional with featureless bounding boxes of various sizes fighting.

I see what you are trying to argue, but this is a steaming pile of false. The reason it is a steaming pile of false is because...

SIZE AND SHAPE MATTER

That statement is true for many things in life, but also very true for Tanks. In another thread where the Prowler is discussed the higher profile of the prowler was an issue in PS1 because it made it easier to hit. A mech is far worse.

A tank is an efficient vehicle that is little more than artillery mounted on wheels and given thick armor. It serves as a shield for infantry and a heavy weapon platform to support them.

If you give a tank a mech chassis you make it an inefficient vehicle and you rob it of its design benefits. Mechs must sit higher off the ground, and they have legs. The higher profile means they're going to take more damage because they are easier to hit. In order for them to have the same effective survivability as a tank, mechs must be given more survivability. This is where the mech design goes wrong. Once you start giving them significantly more survivability than tanks (because you have to) they become super vehicles and in large numbers they throw the game balance all out of whack.

Additionally, mechs lose out on the tank's ability to shield infantry from their most deadly of adversaries - bullets. Tanks were engineered as armor for infantry to have protection against machineguns. The added heavy weapons platforms allow them to take out machinegun nests and increase the effectiveness of the infantry overall by giving them mobile light artillery.

And for the same reason the mechs lose out on the ability for infantry to protect THEM. If you've played any recent battlefield game you'll know that one common strategy is for engineers to cram up behind a tank and repair it while the tank shields them from enemy fire. The engineers keep the tank healthy and the tank batters the enemy positions and slowly moves up. This is great synergy with infantry & tanks. Tanks support infantry; infantry support tanks. Even the huge mechs of Planetside didn't have big enough ankles to properly shield infantry. Smaller mechs would just leave them exposed more.

(On a side note, I believe this is why BFRs had shields - they were not efficient to repair by infantry since would-be engineers were exposed while attempting to repair them...shields solved the problem and made the survivaiblity issue far worse putting them even more out of balance with the game.)

You dont' get either of those with mechs, because the size and shape of the chassis matters. It isn't just a "graphical asset" - that's ridiculous. You're changing the very design and function of the vehicle with that "graphical asset" which changes its its role and imposes vulnerabilities that are only rectified by making it a super weapon.

If you don't correct for those vulnerabilities you have a useless vehicle. If you DO correct for those vulnerabilities you have an overpowered vehicle. There doesn't really exist a sweet spot. Either they are more effective than tanks or they aren't.

MAX on the other hand are well balanced mini-mechs. They are infantry-sized and can perform the role of bullet-shield and engineers can stand behind them and rep them, and infantry can work around them. They are more like tanks than they are mechs because they have efficient design that is as small as it can be, but large enough to provide protection to infantry and heavy weapons support. Effectively MAX are squad-sized tanks and perform the same role indoors as tanks do in the open field.

Cool is the only reason to have them(and "I don't think they are cool" the only valid argument against them), because what something looks like has absolutely zero impact on how it functions in a game, and is completely arbitrary.

As I established above, their very design has non-zero impact on the game and is inferior to tanks, poor for combined arms, and most of all it is prone to being overpowered because it has to be due to its size and shape.

And as you say "cool" is the only reason to have them. They are not practical vehicles, nor are they good for game balance. Mechs make for neat science fiction but they are fundamentally flawed as a military asset. Much like anti-tank dogs. The concept is neat, but it just doesn't end well.