New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2 - Page 5 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Hamma's watching. Think happy thoughts.
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
Old 2011-07-21, 08:28 PM   [Ignore Me] #61
Kietharr
Private
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


No robots please, had enough of that crap in the first game.

If you want a single person vehicle, use a lightning tank. Shit they could make faction specific light tanks for all I care, I just don't want to see robots. Stupid aesthetic, doesn't belong in this game.
Kietharr is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 09:14 PM   [Ignore Me] #62
NivexQ
Contributor
First Sergeant
 
Misc Info
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
The word "Obama" has no place here; keep your politics to the politics forum.



Also, it's not thick-skulled to dislike something because it has no functional purpose. Quite the opposite, actually.

And yes, BFRs could have "worked", as in, we could have tolerated their existence. But that doesn't change the fact that their existence was meaningless. They served no purpose other than ruining the game.

Someone thought it would be cool to have mechs. And if you ask people "Hey, are mechs cool!?!?" Many people would say yes. Because mechs are, in fact, cool. Are they good for gameplay? No. Should we add them because they're cool? Hell no! Should we add a different implementation after we already got burned by it and ruined Planetside 1? Jesus fuck no!
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.

Last edited by NivexQ; 2011-07-21 at 09:16 PM.
NivexQ is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 09:34 PM   [Ignore Me] #63
Talek Krell
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


What you describe seems to have no purpose that couldn't be better and more engagingly fulfilled by a coordinated infantry squad. Your desire for it seems to be split between "mechs are cool" and "I don't like having to work with other people" (nicely highlighted by wanting to including the majority of the biffers most problematic features in your cert tree). The latter is a sentiment that I would like kept as far away from PS2 development as possible, as I believe it to be anathema to the nature of the game. The former is not actually an argument. Cats are also cool. I don't see why the devs should be spending time or resources on them either.
Talek Krell is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 09:53 PM   [Ignore Me] #64
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Talek Krell View Post
Your desire for it seems to be split between "mechs are cool" and "I don't like having to work with other people" (nicely highlighted by wanting to including the majority of the biffers most problematic features in your cert tree).
Nah it's almost 100% based on "mechs are cool". I think the second sentiment your seeing is a byproduct of the first. They're so cool they'll be used too much. Then again solo play is already inherent in Mosquito and Reaver combat along with the lightning and ATVs. (You really only see forced teamwork with the tanks and deliverer type vehicles). The coolness factor definitely plays into the hatred I think. You have to imagine the skill-trees for everything else in the game is going to be utterly massive. Once you get past that it starts to make sense why I listed all those upgrades and choices for the user. Ideally you can't use them all. I believe you spend cert points or something to unlock them after training them. I think...

It's not like I'm suggesting adding a starhawk type mech to the game. (Which is in another Sony game already). That would be unbalanced.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 10:06 PM   [Ignore Me] #65
Treerat
Private
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


You have guts posting that in a place like this. Not because it couldn't be an interesting idea (or give rise to new ideas), but because of the sheer amount of pent-up nerd rage still lingering from the BFRs. What makes it really irritating for me that is that all this BFR-hate is coming from self-declared "elites" who utterly and completely failed at handling the BFR because, despite all of the community managers efforts, they refused to budge one inch from their "fire until it blows up or kill you then bring in the next guy" tactics. It seems as if because they unable or unwilling to adapt away from their previous concepts, they assumed no one else could and therefore the BFR was "unbalanced." Though their antics did provide me with a number of laughs.

I particularly enjoyed watching some of Malnorn's beloved Liberty members throw themselves at a pair of TR two-seat BFRs with AV load outs in a column of Vanguards, only to be completely obliterated because they kept charging in two or three at a time and shooting at different BFRs like knights galloping at a formation of riflemen. Apparently the concept of fanning out to increase the time the BFRs would need to focus both sets of weaponry on a single tank each and concentrating their fire on one BFR to overwhelm it's defenses (a tactic straight of WWII used by American Sherman tanks to counter the Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger tanks superior gun and armor) was beyond them. It was as enjoyable as watching the "elite" outfits of Markov spend a full minute shooting at a parked BFR's body with rifles and heavy assault (most of whom I found out didn't have have AP ammo loaded), then get pissed when the driver came back from their bio break and proceeded to waddle his BFR away with only some damage to the armor and a few items in the trunk destoryed. Apparently the concept of crippling the legs with (again) concentrated fire so it couldn't move away or disabling the shield generator so the vehicles and AV-equipped people outside could add their much heavier firepower to the mix never crossed the empty space that passed for brains among them. In fact I would go so far as to say that that was the ultimate weapon of the BFR; it completely destroyed the "vets" ability to think in anything resembling a rational manner (as shown by this thread) and crippled the more sensible players through making us laugh until we passed out watching the self-declared "elite" repeat the same mistakes over and over then call those who had adapted to a changed situation "noobs" because we didn't agree with them.

I know I had no problem disabling BFRs. I would go as far to say as I found it easier to disable a BFR than any other vehicle short of ANTs, ATVs, or Harassers (and that only due to them being little more than mine bait). With an rifle, yellow ammo, and a little patience I could do enough damage to disable their close-in weapons and cripple their close-range sensors from a distance which made them extremely vulnerable to close-assault. If the terrain was favorable to it, I could improvise an anti-armor ambush with ES-AV or a Deci to target their legs (impairing their mobility) or shield generator (leaving them exposed to attack from vehicles, long-range AV, and other BFRs) then toss a jammer to cover my retreat back into the trees or rocks (the much-maligned fixed surge worked beautifully for that). Even something as simple as running between their legs or behind them and planting a mine or spitfire was incredibly effective at sending them packing for the simplicity of the method. Yet I don't recall seeing one BFR-hate spamming CR4 or CR5 even attempting something that simple even when I suggested it - usually because the response was "fuck off noob, you don't have as many kills as I do".

Yet that was exactly the point of BFRs - instead of being an all-or-nothing prospect like other vehicles, it was possible to drive them off for prolonged periods of time, and to destroy them through the concerted efforts of multiple people. Something that so many "vets" professed to encourage, yet when the need for that sort of cooperation appeared, all they did was become a mob of crying toddlers who spent more time arguing about who hated BFRs more than coming up with counters or even directing battles.

Really the only problem I had with them was how common they were initially, and that wasn't unique to BFRs so I wasn't nearly as upset as they were about it. From the time I started playing until the day I quit Planetside, going outside always resulted in having to dodge the hordes of Reavers and Mosquitos hovering for infantry to spam that were piloted by clones carrying heavy assault, a Decimator, and and having Engineering and Medic certed. If anything the BFRs were a change from that swarm of useless goons; easier to avoid, easier to fight, and much more likely to be piloted by someone who understood the value of preserving equipment instead of getting their crew killed trying to get that one last kill. Not to mention that BFRs worked extremely well with infantry who could use their shields as a safe-haven from the constant hail of Reaver rockets, and a number of those BFR pilots (many more than tank drivers) were willing to do just that AND wouldn't crush their own infantry to preserve their precious K/D ratio.

Which makes this whole "BFR GO HOME!" even more stupid. With the resource system slated for PS2, anything like a BFR would be so heavy in resources needed that it would not at all be suitable for massive deployments. Instead it would fill the same role as the Tiger and King Tiger tanks. A vehicle issued to select units (most King Tiger tanks were found in SS units or elite regular units and then rarely as more than a single battalion in an entire regiment or division) as an offensive weapon used to force a break in the enemies line for fast-movers to exploit to drive deep for a blitzkrieg or for a penetrate-and-wheel about attack to strike the enemy from behind, and the shield that protects the area where the enemy is expected to concentrate his efforts or to blunt a penetration then plug the gap. Oh well, I guess these "vets" would rather see more mindless stalemates that turn into tests of who has more time time stay online until one side gets bored and leaves, than a tactical battlefield where cooperation among leaders, careful allocation of assets, and good execution determine a victor. I hope they enjoy the game when they realize that their irrational behavior and baseless fears & hates cause PS2 to meet the same end as PS1.

PS:
It's not that I can't come up with a response to you. It's that I've learned that arguing with idiots who are convinced that their views and only their views have merit is completely pointless so I made extensive use of the ignore feature. After all, why waste time listening to people spew the same baseless opinions as "gospel truth" when I can simply ignore you after I've made my case and spend that time reading things that even if they don't agree with me have at least some indication that it's more than a tantrum.

Last edited by Treerat; 2011-07-21 at 10:46 PM.
Treerat is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 10:14 PM   [Ignore Me] #66
Talek Krell
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


They're introducing viable infantry AA so that skeeters will change their role, and reavers appear to be bouncing back and forth on becoming two man vehicles to retain some of their current punch. Both lightnings and ATVs are unremarkable, and largely exist to support multi-person vehicles. You are incorrect, there are no cert points. Once trained a skill is available on any class permitted to use it. It doesn't make sense regardless, given that each of these features is teamplay breaking in its own special little way, and certainly constitutes more than a 20% differential between new and old players.

And if you feel as though you're being unfairly forced to work with your team, then this may not be the game for you.
Talek Krell is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 10:45 PM   [Ignore Me] #67
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Talek Krell View Post
They're introducing viable infantry AA so that skeeters will change their role, and reavers appear to be bouncing back and forth on becoming two man vehicles to retain some of their current punch. Both lightnings and ATVs are unremarkable, and largely exist to support multi-person vehicles. You are incorrect, there are no cert points. Once trained a skill is available on any class permitted to use it. It doesn't make sense regardless, given that each of these features is teamplay breaking in its own special little way, and certainly constitutes more than a 20% differential between new and old players.
Nah Reaver is a single person vehicle in PS2. Higby mentioned the change earlier. They're essentially the same role as in PS1.

As for game breaking there could be restrictions on the usage of upgrades in combination. It would help if you listed in what way they're game breaking? The shield I'd imagine would only take a little bit of damage and drain all the energy when used. It grabs energy from the same pool as the jump jets. Also I'm thinking just small jumps like over a wall or onto a tree. Nothing like the BFR jump.

Originally Posted by Talek Krell View Post
And if you feel as though you're being unfairly forced to work with your team, then this may not be the game for you.
Why do you feel it's not based around teamwork. It would be a fairly weak vehicle. I think many Mossy/Reaver pilots would disagree with you that a single person vehicle can't be part of a team. I could definitely see one of these mechs staying around people for protection.
Sirisian is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 11:12 PM   [Ignore Me] #68
kaffis
Contributor
Major
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Logit View Post
OK, don't everyone shit their pants lol. I was assuming part of the new flight mechanics wouldn't allow the hover.

My b.
I'd say it's a fair assumption, to be honest.

The description Smed uses to denigrate the old flight mechanics is "flying camera." In other words, it was just a camera perspective you could move around with a vehicle and guns attached.

Changing that implies, pretty strongly, to me that there will be some aerodynamics (and thus, required forward momentum to maintain lift) involved.
kaffis is offline  
Old 2011-07-21, 11:14 PM   [Ignore Me] #69
NivexQ
Contributor
First Sergeant
 
Misc Info
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Treerat View Post
You have guts posting that in a place like this. Not because it couldn't be an interesting idea (or give rise to new ideas), but because of the sheer amount of pent-up nerd rage still lingering from the BFRs. What makes it really irritating for me that is that all this BFR-hate is coming from self-declared "elites" who utterly and completely failed at handling the BFR because, despite all of the community managers efforts, they refused to budge one inch from their "fire until it blows up or kill you then bring in the next guy" tactics. It seems as if because they unable or unwilling to adapt away from their previous concepts, they assumed no one else could and therefore the BFR was "unbalanced." Though their antics did provide me with a number of laughs.

I particularly enjoyed watching some of Malnorn's beloved Liberty members throw themselves at a pair of TR two-seat BFRs with AV load outs in a column of Vanguards, only to be completely obliterated because they kept charging in two or three at a time and shooting at different BFRs like knights galloping at a formation of riflemen. Apparently the concept of fanning out to increase the time the BFRs would need to focus both sets of weaponry on a single tank each and concentrating their fire on one BFR to overwhelm it's defenses (a tactic straight of WWII used by American Sherman tanks to counter the Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger tanks superior gun and armor) was beyond them. It was as enjoyable as watching the "elite" outfits of Markov spend a full minute shooting at a parked BFR's body with rifles and heavy assault (most of whom I found out didn't have have AP ammo loaded), then get pissed when the driver came back from their bio break and proceeded to waddle his BFR away with only some damage to the armor and a few items in the trunk destoryed. Apparently the concept of crippling the legs with (again) concentrated fire so it couldn't move away or disabling the shield generator so the vehicles and AV-equipped people outside could add their much heavier firepower to the mix never crossed the empty space that passed for brains among them. In fact I would go so far as to say that that was the ultimate weapon of the BFR; it completely destroyed the "vets" ability to think in anything resembling a rational manner (as shown by this thread) and crippled the more sensible players through making us laugh until we passed out watching the self-declared "elite" repeat the same mistakes over and over then call those who had adapted to a changed situation "noobs" because we didn't agree with them.

I know I had no problem disabling BFRs. I would go as far to say as I found it easier to disable a BFR than any other vehicle short of ANTs, ATVs, or Harassers (and that only due to them being little more than mine bait). With an rifle, yellow ammo, and a little patience I could do enough damage to disable their close-in weapons and cripple their close-range sensors from a distance which made them extremely vulnerable to close-assault. If the terrain was favorable to it, I could improvise an anti-armor ambush with ES-AV or a Deci to target their legs (impairing their mobility) or shield generator (leaving them exposed to attack from vehicles, long-range AV, and other BFRs) then toss a jammer to cover my retreat back into the trees or rocks (the much-maligned fixed surge worked beautifully for that). Even something as simple as running between their legs or behind them and planting a mine or spitfire was incredibly effective at sending them packing for the simplicity of the method. Yet I don't recall seeing one BFR-hate spamming CR4 or CR5 even attempting something that simple even when I suggested it - usually because the response was "fuck off noob, you don't have as many kills as I do".

Yet that was exactly the point of BFRs - instead of being an all-or-nothing prospect like other vehicles, it was possible to drive them off for prolonged periods of time, and to destroy them through the concerted efforts of multiple people. Something that so many "vets" professed to encourage, yet when the need for that sort of cooperation appeared, all they did was become a mob of crying toddlers who spent more time arguing about who hated BFRs more than coming up with counters or even directing battles.

Really the only problem I had with them was how common they were initially, and that wasn't unique to BFRs so I wasn't nearly as upset as they were about it. From the time I started playing until the day I quit Planetside, going outside always resulted in having to dodge the hordes of Reavers and Mosquitos hovering for infantry to spam that were piloted by clones carrying heavy assault, a Decimator, and and having Engineering and Medic certed. If anything the BFRs were a change from that swarm of useless goons; easier to avoid, easier to fight, and much more likely to be piloted by someone who understood the value of preserving equipment instead of getting their crew killed trying to get that one last kill. Not to mention that BFRs worked extremely well with infantry who could use their shields as a safe-haven from the constant hail of Reaver rockets, and a number of those BFR pilots (many more than tank drivers) were willing to do just that AND wouldn't crush their own infantry to preserve their precious K/D ratio.

Which makes this whole "BFR GO HOME!" even more stupid. With the resource system slated for PS2, anything like a BFR would be so heavy in resources needed that it would not at all be suitable for massive deployments. Instead it would fill the same role as the Tiger and King Tiger tanks. A vehicle issued to select units (most King Tiger tanks were found in SS units or elite regular units and then rarely as more than a single battalion in an entire regiment or division) as an offensive weapon used to force a break in the enemies line for fast-movers to exploit to drive deep for a blitzkrieg or for a penetrate-and-wheel about attack to strike the enemy from behind, and the shield that protects the area where the enemy is expected to concentrate his efforts or to blunt a penetration then plug the gap. Oh well, I guess these "vets" would rather see more mindless stalemates that turn into tests of who has more time time stay online until one side gets bored and leaves, than a tactical battlefield where cooperation among leaders, careful allocation of assets, and good execution determine a victor. I hope they enjoy the game when they realize that their irrational behavior and baseless fears & hates cause PS2 to meet the same end as PS1.

PS:
It's not that I can't come up with a response to you. It's that I've learned that arguing with idiots who are convinced that their views and only their views have merit is completely pointless so I made extensive use of the ignore feature. After all, why waste time listening to people spew the same baseless opinions as "gospel truth" when I can simply ignore you after I've made my case and spend that time reading things that even if they don't agree with me have at least some indication that it's more than a tantrum.
NivexQ is offline  
Old 2011-07-22, 12:13 AM   [Ignore Me] #70
Treerat
Private
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by NivexQ View Post
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.
Treerat is offline  
Old 2011-07-22, 12:46 AM   [Ignore Me] #71
Talek Krell
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
Nah Reaver is a single person vehicle in PS2. Higby mentioned the change earlier. They're essentially the same role as in PS1.
The definition of "bouncing" in this context, is "changing back and forth". The devs have been quite clear on the fluidity of their design at this point.

Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
Why do you feel it's not based around teamwork. It would be a fairly weak vehicle. I think many Mossy/Reaver pilots would disagree with you that a single person vehicle can't be part of a team. I could definitely see one of these mechs staying around people for protection.
I think we must have fundamentally different understandings of why the BFR failed. The fact that it was (I'm told) hilariously OP at launch merely amplified the underlying issue.
The problem with the BFR is that it's a single player vehicle in a multi player game.
Note that I said player, not person. Lightnings pull back to repair crews to get fixed. The BFR has regenerative health. It doesn't need air support, or armor support, or infantry cover, it can do all of those things on its own. It doesn't need to be transported, or saved from difficult situations, it can autorun. And fly(). In the jigsaw puzzle of Planetside, it's a piece with 4 flat edges. Sony tried to fix it by nerfing it, but it's broken fundamentally because it's anathema to the idea behind the game. Team based combat on a strategic scale.
Your mechs have that same feel. They're superfluous. They don't fit unless you try to hammer them into the spot currently occupied by infantry and maxes. If they're strong enough to do their jobs, no one with the cert points will bother to use infantry or maxes. If they're nerfed enough not to threaten balance, no one will use them and they'll be wasted development resources.

If the only reason you want these is because "mechs are cool" then my equally well reasoned reply is "not really".
Talek Krell is offline  
Old 2011-07-22, 01:57 AM   [Ignore Me] #72
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Talek Krell View Post
I think we must have fundamentally different understandings of why the BFR failed. The fact that it was (I'm told) hilariously OP at launch merely amplified the underlying issue.
The problem with the BFR is that it's a single player vehicle in a multi player game.
Note that I said player, not person. Lightnings pull back to repair crews to get fixed. The BFR has regenerative health. It doesn't need air support, or armor support, or infantry cover, it can do all of those things on its own. It doesn't need to be transported, or saved from difficult situations, it can autorun. And fly(). In the jigsaw puzzle of Planetside, it's a piece with 4 flat edges. Sony tried to fix it by nerfing it, but it's broken fundamentally because it's anathema to the idea behind the game. Team based combat on a strategic scale.
Why are you talking about BFRs? Read the original post. This thread isn't about BFRs at all. You're confused apparently. Seriously you're way off. Infantry and maxes can go inside where vehicles can't. If we have urban areas and judging from the bases built into walls you're thinking of mechs as some kind of indoor vehicle which it isn't.

Not to mention it sounds like you've never used a BFR. It has regnerative shield actually. The armor isn't regenerative, but that's kind of obvious if you've played the game. My concept just has armor. I randomly said an upgrade could include a momentary shield that would drain the energy bar for momentary protection.

I already said explicity that with my design with just double the armor of a lightning it too would need to pull back and repair when it's components were damaged. In fact it's designed to survive even if its weapons are destroyed. (Shooting a decimator at an arm would destroy it essentially and eat into the total armor bar like normal).

Also with this concept it would need air support. Taking a packet of rockets to it or mosquito fire would literally destroy components or damage them. Their barrage of rockets on the shoulders would only be effective with an AA upgrade of sorts. (Like an ammo type the player could unlock). Not sure if you've used a Reaver from dive bombing and quick attacking a vehicle is ridiculously easy.
Originally Posted by Talek Krell View Post
Your mechs have that same feel. They're superfluous. They don't fit unless you try to hammer them into the spot currently occupied by infantry and maxes. If they're strong enough to do their jobs, no one with the cert points will bother to use infantry or maxes. If they're nerfed enough not to threaten balance, no one will use them and they'll be wasted development resources.

If the only reason you want these is because "mechs are cool" then my equally well reasoned reply is "not really".
Infantry and maxes can go inside. The game is around 50% indoor and 50% outdoor fighting. So yeah not replacing infantry or maxes. Try again.
Sirisian is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-07-22, 02:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #73
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


This is amusing to see someone actually defend BFRs not by providing good reason for their existence but by using them as a Darwinistic example of why he is a better player and to rage at those that consistently schooled him.

I would have responded to more of your drivel but its just whining about and harping on "elitists" and doesn't have a meaningful argument anywhere within so I'll just stick to the lies and the denial.


I particularly enjoyed watching some of Malnorn's beloved Liberty members throw themselves at a pair of TR two-seat BFRs with AV load outs in a column of Vanguards, only to be completely obliterated because they kept charging in two or three at a time and shooting at different BFRs like knights galloping at a formation of riflemen.
Please, you may not like me or my outfit, but don't make shit up. We were not incompetent noobs and we were quite quick to adapt to BFRs as much as was possible in that early insanity in late 2004. This little story you describe never happened. When we rolled vanguards we always focus-fired BFRs (and every other vehicle for that matter) for the simple ridiculous reality that a single vanguard's damage could be out-healed by the shield of a BFR. You had to focus fire to kill them and everyone in Liberty who drove and gunned a tank was painfully aware of that fact. We understand the basic and fundamental concept of focus-fire in games and have for about two decades, thanks.

Yet that was exactly the point of BFRs - instead of being an all-or-nothing prospect like other vehicles, it was possible to drive them off for prolonged periods of time, and to destroy them through the concerted efforts of multiple people. Something that so many "vets" professed to encourage, yet when the need for that sort of cooperation appeared, all they did was become a mob of crying toddlers who spent more time arguing about who hated BFRs more than coming up with counters or even directing battles.
Ever think that maybe the reason we all hate BFRs is because they fundamentally changed the gameplay of Planetside in a terrible way for no good reason?

Of course not! Clearly we're all thick-skulled tards that can't figure out how to counter new things! That must be it!

If they had been normal vehicles with normal ground-vehicle behavior they would have just been a role overlap. Instead they were given regenerative shields and jumpjets, two things which fundamentally changed vehicle combat and broke vehicle balance in the game. Really those are the two things that made them terrible. Had they just been 2-seater "heavy tanks" with more armor and no shields so any damage they took was permanent like any other vehicle then they probably would have been fine and we could have weathered the storm.

But no, they introduced giant jumping robots that had massive firepower and absurd survivability that completely ruined the vehicle balance of planetside. GG.

But even had they been properly balanced vehicles they'd still have role overlap with tanks. In PS2 tanks with upgradable weapons seems like a rough equivalent of any role a BFR could provide. Vanguard + AA or AI weaponry, etc. Same idea but implemented in a more balanced way with the vehicle that occupies the same functional role.

And that takes us full circle back to the underlying point that mechs have no functional role in Planetside, which the author of this thread plainly admitted to when he said it was almost 100% because "mechs are cool!"
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Old 2011-07-22, 02:39 AM   [Ignore Me] #74
CutterJohn
Colonel
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
And that takes us full circle back to the underlying point that mechs have no functional role in Planetside, which the author of this thread plainly admitted to when he said it was almost 100% because "mechs are cool!"
A mech is just a form of locomotion. Nothing else. You may as well be saying that treads have no functional role in planetside, since wheels do everything tracks do.

But tanks are cool. So are mechs. Theres nothing wrong with that. Theres nothing wrong with role overlap either, so long as the different chassis have different strengths and weaknesses. They will each find their own little niche.

Last edited by CutterJohn; 2011-07-22 at 02:41 AM.
CutterJohn is offline  
Old 2011-07-22, 02:46 AM   [Ignore Me] #75
Talek Krell
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
You're confused apparently.
One of us certainly is.
Talek Krell 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 04:31 AM.

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.