New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

They have no role in the game that isnt' filled by other vehicles, which means having them either makes them redundant/irrelevant, or OP because they render the other vehicles useless.

Then replace one of the vehicles with something a bit cooler. Wheres the harm in that? Its a futuristic shooter, but we're running around on ATVs?

Also, there are always more roles that can be added. More nuanced options that split the difference between other vehicles, or add previously missing roles on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by PsychoXR-20

Does any other role in the game have as many counters, spread across as many roles as air does?

Yes. All of them. Theres a ton of AA because there is a ton of air, and AA is the only viable counter to air, a role held by two units(well, three, counting bfrs). All other ground vehicles, and all infantry, have troubles with air units. Deli's could be a halfway decent AA platform, but even with 3 people, it was less effective than a skyguard.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Then replace one of the vehicles with something a bit cooler. Wheres the harm in that? Its a futuristic shooter, but we're running around on ATVs?

Are you suggesting we replace ATVs with mechs? ATVS are lightly armed/armored and are designed for very fast infantry ground transport that is completely lost when you replace them with mechs. They have a specific role, and are fun to drive and zip around on.

Also, there are always more roles that can be added. More nuanced options that split the difference between other vehicles, or add previously missing roles on the battlefield.

If you think of a role not already occupied by an existing vehicle that a mech would be really good at, please let me know.

I'm of the rather solid opinion mechs have no role on their own because they are basically tanks with legs. So you have either tanks or mechs, and tanks are a lot better because
1) they have lower & smaller profiles (thus taking less damage while still peforming their job)
2) more stable shooting platforms (smooth ride vs bobbing from walking)
3) better serve the "armor" role by shielding infantry from small arms (mech legs dont do that very well)
4) faster & more maneuverable

And the only thing mechs have is height for better firing angles, but that comes at the cost of being much easier to hit and thus taking a lot more damage. Steep price.

Yes. All of them. Theres a ton of AA because there is a ton of air, and AA is the only viable counter to air, a role held by two units(well, three, counting bfrs). All other ground vehicles, and all infantry, have troubles with air units. Deli's could be a halfway decent AA platform, but even with 3 people, it was less effective than a skyguard.

The state of air balance for PS2 can't really be gauged effectively by looking at PS1.

* They stated that there would be "viable" infantry anti-air.
* Flying will take a lot more skill so we'll likely see fewer pilots from that alone (and at least fewer effective pilots)
* cert roles means the one-man-army mosq/reaver pilots are unlikely to exist, those players will likely gravitate towards being full on pilots or more infantry-oriented since they cannot do both simultaneously as in PS1
* vehicles can get various upgrades, including anti-air capabilties
* we don't know the state of repair/rearm in PS2 - this was a HUGE factor to the popularity of aircraft in PS1. Before repair-rearm you actually didn't see a lot of aircraft.
* we don't know what sort of vehicle timers exist in PS2 and whether they are on shared cooldowns - this made a big difference also when they cut the timer from 10 and 5 and made it easy to have both mosquito and reaver in a bundle in PS1. That + repair rearm had a drastic increase in aircraft population.

That's a lot of different stuff there and that makes it very difficult to gauge whether we need specific anti-air.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Skyguard get replaced by an empire-specific buggy anti-air upgrade. Though the Thresher with flak guns does sort of seem ridiculously OP.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Are you suggesting we replace ATVs with mechs? ATVS are lightly armed/armored and are designed for very fast infantry ground transport that is completely lost when you replace them with mechs. They have a specific role, and are fun to drive and zip around on.

Who says mechs are slow? A small 1 man deal that weighs couple tons? Could be quite spry. It would be fun to zip around on a mech too.

If you think of a role not already occupied by an existing vehicle that a mech would be really good at, please let me know.

I'm of the rather solid opinion mechs have no role on their own because they are basically tanks with legs. So you have either tanks or mechs, and tanks are a lot better because
1) they have lower & smaller profiles (thus taking less damage while still peforming their job)
2) more stable shooting platforms (smooth ride vs bobbing from walking)
3) better serve the "armor" role by shielding infantry from small arms (mech legs dont do that very well)
4) faster & more maneuverable

And the only thing mechs have is height for better firing angles, but that comes at the cost of being much easier to hit and thus taking a lot more damage. Steep price.

1. Quite true. Though I think you underestimate how tall tanks are. That mech in district 9 would be only slightly higher.
2. I fear you have not spent enough time off road in a wheeled or tracked vehicle, nor on a horse. The ride on rough ground will definitely be smoother on the horse at a canter or gallop since they adjust their legs to the terrain rather than bouncing over it, and the turrets will be stabilized for both anyway.
3. Not all vehicles serve this role, or need to.
4. Faster over certain types of terrain and not as maneuverable.

A mech would not be heavily armored. Foot loading would be too high. They could never be walking tanks, and would fail at the job. Their purpose would be highly mobile scouts/fire support in rough terrain, like mountainous areas and thick forests. They could step over obstacles that would be insurmountable, possibly even climb somewhat with the right foot and leg design. They are tall, sure, but they can turn, sidestep, etc, to fit through tight areas, and are much narrower than tanks/apcs/trucks. Anything you can do or anyplace you can go on legs a mech could pretty much follow, so long as whatever it was supported its weight. Mechs would suck as badly on flat desert as tanks do in the mountains.