New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2 - Page 25

VioletZero · 2012-01-23, 01:30 PM

Wait a second, the main argument against mechs is that there shouldn't be a single person vehicle more powerful than a MAX, but if a driver can operate the main gun too, doesn't that basically mean that tanks can be single person now?

Warborn · 2012-01-23, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

Wait a second, the main argument against mechs is that there shouldn't be a single person vehicle more powerful than a MAX, but if a driver can operate the main gun too, doesn't that basically mean that tanks can be single person now?

The main argument against mechs is that we don't have any idea what sort of capability MBTs will have beyond "it's a tank and shoots stuff or something", and therefore it's way too tell what kind of niche would be available for mechs to occupy. Having two ground vehicles that are two person and designed around either killing armor or infantry based on their load-out would be redundant and a waste of effort. Mechs, and any vehicle they add to the game really, needs to have a specific purpose that isn't occupied by some other vehicle already. Otherwise you get situations like in PS1 where you had a ton of vehicles that were basically pointless additions to the game because they were worse than some other vehicle at essentially any function.

Redshift · 2012-01-23, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

The main argument against mechs is ...

No the main arguement is that they are implausible as far as sensible military design, reasons posted earlier.

No idea why people are pissing themselves to put ironsights in for realism and then trying to stick in bipedal tanks.....

NewSith · 2012-01-23, 04:28 PM

How can't you love those?

Warborn · 2012-01-23, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

No the main arguement is that they are implausible as far as sensible military design, reasons posted earlier.

Okay, well, that isn't a real argument so nobody cares about it. In terms of arguments that themselves are sensible objections I think the main issue is one of gameplay.

Redshift · 2012-01-23, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Okay, well, that isn't a real argument so nobody cares about it. In terms of arguments that themselves are sensible objections I think the main issue is one of gameplay.

no i think the idea of an army choosing walking robots over tanks laughable tbh

Raymac · 2012-01-23, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

no i think the idea of an army choosing walking robots over tanks laughable tbh

But wouldn't walking robots have an advantage of going over rough terrain?

There's pros and cons. But let's always keep in mind that Planetside is sci-fi which always mixes healthy doses of reality and fantasy. I'm reminded of the scene in Star Wars of Han Solo and Obi-Wan debating the feasability of lightsabers.

Figment · 2012-01-23, 06:23 PM

Tbh, haven't posted in this thread yet, due to the obvious.

But the implementation of mechs in PS2 would have several, BIG problems.

1. SOE has on several occassions promised there would be no Battleframe Robotics in PS2. Going back on their word would get severe backlash from the community, regardless of how they are implemented.

2. The majority of PS1 players have been traumatised by BFRs. The main problem everyone had an issue with was not the shape of the vehicle, but the specific abilities these units had where other units did not have anywhere close. Particularly at release, but also later on as they gradually got nerfed till they were acceptably 'balanced'. These main abilities were shield (strength and recharge rate), jumping height and frequency, building camping (from top of buildings in particular), combined with more than impressive firepower. Though PS2 mechs would not need to have them, the association is enough to make many PS1 players distrust the concept completely.

The problem for fans of big effing robots, is that since ALL PS1 mechs weren't properly balanced for a long period of time, these characteristics are now appearing to be intrinsically associated with the mere concept of mechs. In fact, even MAX units (Scat MAX in particular, but overuse in indoor situations in general, especially by zergfits) contributed even more to a general hatred of mecha-nized units.

Btw, Duke, saw you say something about Big robots HAVING to be powerful using a circle argument as if there is some inherent quality about big robots that define them being more powerful than anyone else and providing an elitist position where they can not be killed but can kill at their own discresion.

Just... NO. Big robots have robotic elements, which are of a large size. That is all. Nowhere does it state they should be invincible deathmachines just because they are robots. Nobody can blame you for having a liking to robots or even BFRs. However, if you support it with such a bad argument, they can blame you for being a selfish, robot fanboy with no sense for social game interaction and fair gameplay balance (ie. one unit being way more powerful than others for no reason whatsoever).

So, since there is no absolute need for adding mech units and the discriminating hatred against anything BFR designfamily related, I don't think it'd be a very bright idea to add them. And considering at this point the vote is approximately 78% against, 16% in favour, that seems quite a convincing reason not to, to me anyway.

Topic closed?

Raymac · 2012-01-23, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

2. The majority of PS1 players have been traumatised by BFRs. The main problem everyone had an issue with was not the shape of the vehicle, but the specific abilities these units had where other units did not have anywhere close. Particularly at release, but also later on as they gradually got nerfed till they were acceptably 'balanced'. These main abilities were shield (strength and recharge rate), jumping height and frequency, building camping (from top of buildings in particular), combined with more than impressive firepower. Though PS2 mechs would not need to have them, the association is enough to make many PS1 players distrust the concept completely.

I don't know if I've ever agreed with ya more, Figment. Word for word. Well said.

The only thing I would add is that I would leave the door open for a balanced mech to be in the game at some point, if only because you should never say never. T-Ray has stated his desire for mechs to be done right, and I think it's possible, but they would just have to be very vocal to the players about learning from the mistakes of the first iteration of BFRs.

Redshift · 2012-01-23, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

But wouldn't walking robots have an advantage of going over rough terrain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6dKPkL2oto0

no,

bipedal robots cost a shit load are difficult to control and are more liable to break.

wheels do do everything better

Hmr85 · 2012-01-23, 06:39 PM

This takes place way in the future. I don't think Asimo is a good representation of what technology would be by then. I would hope we would have found a way to take care of that.

Raymac · 2012-01-23, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6dKPkL2oto0

no,

bipedal robots cost a shit load are difficult to control and are more liable to break.

wheels do do everything better

But imagine Asimo 6.0. We are talking about the future here. It's not exactly fair to compare the 1st telephone with the iPhone. Wheels and treads have advantages and limits just like legs.

Hmr85 · 2012-01-23, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

But imagine Asimo 6.0. We are talking about the future here. It's not exactly fair to compare the 1st telephone with the iPhone. Wheels and treads have advantages and limits just like legs.

well said..

VioletZero · 2012-01-23, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

No the main arguement is that they are implausible as far as sensible military design, reasons posted earlier.

No idea why people are pissing themselves to put ironsights in for realism and then trying to stick in bipedal tanks.....

Personally, I am in favor of ironsights because it slows down the game to a point where tact is more important than individual skill. But that's a topic for another thread.

Redshift · 2012-01-23, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

This takes place way in the future. I don't think Asimo is a good representation of what technology would be by then. I would hope we would have found a way to take care of that.

well yes, but that assumes standard vehicles technology doesn't evolve too. I'm pretty sure no matter how good you can make a bipedal robot you'll always be able to build a better wheeled thing, the centre of gravity alone makes legs less useful

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