[Suggestion] Mechs for Planetside 2 (Pics Included)

They look awesome.

I like the idea

Could offer a nice alternative to the lightning.

Or make them bigger and 2-manned, heavy tank.

Still nope

How do you balance something that is slow but a very visible target?

A) give it a bucket load of armor and high resistance table figures, congratulations you have made something heavier then a vanguard
B) make it nimble enough to get to those hard to reach places, congratulations you have just made the magrider (the weakest of the tanks on paper) obsolete
C) Give it an over the top DPS, see the prowler.

You cannot make any playstyle obsolete (much like the first ones did) and you cannot make it over powered (much like they were in the first game before being nerfed very very very heavily), without incurring the wrath of many veterens

There is no need in the game for a heavy tank/walker at the moment, and how do you balance it against a single infantryman?

Then you also have to assume if its better then a tank expect a zerg of them.

You're implying we can only ever have one heavily-armored thing, one mobile thing, and one high-DPS thing.

But that's already not true. ESFs are mobile and high-damage. Do they make Prowlers obsolete? No, there are battles where Prowlers are good, and ones where ESFs are good, because different things counter each of them and the exact mix (and method) of damage and mobility is very different between them.

So you could absolutely keep these vehicles balanced as a highly mobile, medium-damage vehicle with a larger profile (due to standing taller).

The decision of whether or not to implement mechs/BFRs in PS2 has always been purely one of aesthetics and whether the playerbase accepts the visuals of them. Because they definitely could be balanced to fill a unique role, just as all the existing vehicles fall somewhere on the spectrum of armor/damage/mobility.

The only design which is definitely unworkable is to use PS1's style balancing (near the start of BFRs) since most players were unable to counter their regenerating shields and strong damage output. (Even though it was possible with skill for one player to take out a ground BFR easily, most players weren't skilled enough to accomplish that -- so for most players the thing was overpowered.)

ESF are glass cannonsl, one AP round they die

A walker would have to be heavily armored (due to the high hit box) or with amount of fire it would die, with the option of be able to goto places tanks cannot get to with generally better or at least equal firepower, congrats you have everything all wrapped up in one package thus making the walker into the default vehicle.

Then there's the fact a significant part of the player base would just go bye.

It depends on how "large" a profile it has. Naturally the bigger it is, the easier it is to hit and the harder it is to hide, so the more "bonuses" (of durability, agility, or firepower) it needs to remain useful in battle.



If you had a pretty small-sized mech, like the Wolverine from Tiberium Sun (to the right of the human), then you wouldn't need to make it very powerful at all because it would be small enough to remain combat viable.

But change it to the "medium-sized" Titan mech to the right of the Wolverine (which was about the size of a PS1 BFR) and it starts to get harder. Imagine a vehicle that is over twice as tall as a Vanguard... and what sort of natural cover such a vehicle can use and what sorts of cover are unavailable to it. It probably would need greater "bonuses" than a MBT because it simply would be so much more of a target.

Now if you made it "giant-sized" like the Mammoth mech to the right of the Titan, then it has to be absurdly armored, agile, or powerful. Would likely destroy game-balance.

So the question is... what size mech/BFR would be added? And I don't think there's an agreed-upon answer to that. Some people want a mech that's slightly taller than a person. Others want one that they can "stomp" around in. But size does matter, and the larger it is the more "bonuses" it will require to offset the size issue.

Right, which is why profile size needs to be very carefully controlled because it's a very significant factor that the vehicle's capabilities have to be balanced around. Much like how the Valk's profile size is probably a bit bigger than it should be for a light transport, which you'd want to be fast and lightly armored, working more off evasion than tanking damage.

We have the slightly larger mech. It is called a MAX.

And the VS one is still the weakest! WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?
P.S. Let the Terran cry!

You give it the ability to walk over Elevated Terrain [Vehicle] even better than infantry since it can travel over taller ridges. This would allow it to get behind cover easily. Then you just let the people who think what they are driving something tougher than a tank, blow up on the roads that they should not have been on.

These are almost generalizations for all faction specific vehicles and guns not just the tanks. TR is fast, VS is accurate, NC is tough. The closest tank to the way I see mechs is the vanu magrider which is nimble but has no where near the climbing power of an infantryman and way tougher than a mech should be. Although it is often seen strafing the sides of valleys I and can't recall seeing a magrider fight successfully on the top of elevated ridges against infantry.

I agree but devil is in the details.

There is never a need to do anything ever unless a person wants more. The question of infantry is an interesting one though. Lets make this simple and assume that tanks always control the valleys when they are present. So the only places that mechs go up against infantry are among elevated ridges. The best defense against mechs would be heavy assaults with ground target tracking missiles. All infantry could use any weapon to do small damage so a trick could be to surround a mech and then suddenly open fire as a group to do damage fast enough and from a position that it has less chance of retreating and repairing. To counter this the mech would need to do allot of scouting to take on infantry more individually but would then more likely expose itself to bigger weapons from down in the valleys or from the air. The mechs relationship with air would be similar to maxes but would be more vulnerable because mechs can't hide in buildings.

They would only be better than a tank on elevated terrain. They would be able to get around tank shields because they can walk up the same ridges infantry can, but in bases would be a big target that can't shoot well through doorways at ground level and vulnerable to small infantry machine guns. So normally they would hang around on the hills above bases looking for cheap shots and ambushes while ducking from anything that shoots back.

If the price is right players will always zerg vehicles, that is what armor Columns are, Maybe mechs from the safety of the hills could even help break up those armor columns who run into town and blasting shells through low doorways while spamming repairs. Mechs would do a similar thing from above like air does but would mix it up a bit more.

I heard from other players that automated supply trucks between bases were going to be a new addition to the game. This would be excellent to create reasons to assault and defend the roads between bases. I think mechs would fit nicely into that kind of convoy assault gameplay.

I still think a significant reason for the company shying away from mechs is because the required animations for convincing hill walking and the tracking of where the legs step would be complex to do right. Especially if mechs need to be able to dodge.

Give it jump jets and make it as big as an AMP suit from AVATAR then we're in business

This shouldn't be an excuse, really. From Software did a great job at leg movements in Chromehounds and that was almost a decade ago.

First off on the jump jets: ain't gonna happen. Devs already ditched it for the Vanu MAX as it was absurdly powerful and broken as hell when they trialled it in the PTS as an alternative to ZOE. No way it is being added to a tank-like anything.

Secondly Chrome hounds had a TEAM dedicated to just that. PS2 does not have those resources.


asmodraxus brings up what in my opinion is the two biggest issues with mechs in this game: Size vs survivability and role

Make it small, what's the point? MAXes fill that slot without devoting months of time and resources for an aesthetics kick.

If it is in the "average" mech size window ( +/- 10 meters) then it is extremely vulnerable to ranged AV fire and would have to be up-armored. Too much mobility and you are no trouncing around on THREE other vehicle shtiks. Bases are designed to keep vehicles away from infantry (theoretically) and any height increase over a sunderer now causes issues with them firing over walls and into bases not to mention having to go through and redesigning terrain and bases on 4 continents to accomidate this unusual vehicle height and shape.

As much as you may want one there is no place for mechs in this game (or even real battlefields for that matter but that is a whole other discussion board). There is no role for them to fill. Heavy armor/firepower = MBT's. Light armor = Lighnting. Flanker/skirmisher = Harasser. Fast and mobile utility/support = Flash. Armored utility/support = Sunderer. Strike vehicle = ESF. Gunship = Lib. Heavy transport = Galaxy. Light transport/CAS = Valkyrie.

What hole does a mech fill? It can't overlap roles as this game community (even the devs) want even more specialization and defining roles for vehicles. They will not pool time and resources just for alternative options to vehicles with the games current state nor add a off-the-wall vehicle play type in that would require massive map, base, and balance redesign for "flavor."

It has far less to do with PS1 attitudes and more to do with "why?". It's not worth the resources for this already neutered development team.

Well, an "average" sized mech would have advantages of its own. It would be capable of mounting much more firepower than a tank. It height would also be more of an advantage than a disadvantage, as it would be able to fight infantry where other vehicles are helpless. Naturally, on an open field a mech would fare poorly against a tank, but up close in an urban environment the mech would be the clear victor.

Ummmm... why? Wouldn't a tank, whose weight is spread out over a broad set of treads, be able to support more weight than a mech that concentrates all the weight onto two "feet"? Not to mention that tank chassis allow for greater recoil absorption than mechs (not as applicable to missiles, but for cannon it makes sense).

Man I would love to see mechs in ps2. They don't have to be as tough as BFR's you know. I see a lot of people saying no because BFR's ruined ps1.

Well if those BFR's in ps1 weren't so stupidly strong then they would not have ruined anything. Just been fun to drive and fight with.

So I am all for mechs in ps2 as long as they are not overly powerful/

Surface area is important. A tank can have a very limited amount of armament without compromising its armor, but a mech can mount weaponry practically everywhere.

Ha ha I looked at the chrome hounds animations and they are exactly the kind they had in PlanetSide1. It makes the mechs feel small because there is no inertia. The mech is just rooted to the ground with every step. I'm talking about mechs that lean into turns sidestep when losing ballance and slide their feet in front of them when they are slipping.

It does not seem like they spent much time on leg animations I think they spent it all on extreme customization.

Well maxes are like small mechs, I imagine a common medium mech about the size that the artist portrayed at the beginning of this thread (Note that they are not tall enough to shoot directly over walls but are tall enough to be shot over walls. A large mech them would be around ten meters tall (The hight of a school bus stood on it's ends) and would be something special that only spawns from the warp gate or maybe like a prowler.

I get the feeling that you are disregarding some points I try to make about them being an Elevated Terrain Vehicle, reliant on elevated cover. In my view it would be very vulnerable to anti vehicle fire, medeocerly vulnerable to anti air and lightly vulnerable to infantry. It's armor would be something slightly tougher than a harasser, valkyrie or max

Air already shoots over walls and are much more maneuverable than a mech would be. A mech in an elevated position would be something between a tank that sometimes fires over walls and air that can easily fire over walls. The flack guns would work against the mech so it would be like a grounded air unit, like a giant robot chicken. Medium mechs would actually be a decent defensive unit to spawn in a friendly base to fight annoying air attacks coming from over a mountain. Something that is in between an air unit and ground units is something very unique, not because it could jump short distances like a large infantry but because it can move quickly over elevated cover.

I like your interpretation of existing roles but a mech can't really both change nothing and change too much. It is too self conflicting to be an argument against mechs. It is neither just a flavor of another vehicle nor something that forces all the bases to be changed because there are already things in the game the bend these oversimplified rules. This is not chess, it is not always black and white nor does it have to be a shade of gray unless the viewer is completely colorblind.

There are only so many one word roles a person can pull out of a thesaurus before there are no more to use. I bet no one can label one word roles for all the current vehicles. I don't want to play too much word games but lets call them "Ambushers/Circumventers/Mountaineers/Calvary/Scouts/GirlGuides" LOL. With this much specificity I think this actually calls the specificity of all the other vehicles roles into question.

emmmmm




no




the issue isnt where you can mount weapons....if i wanted i could make an 8 barreled M1A2 Abrams MBT with 2 vulcan chainguns...........can the turret take the recoil or firing those all at once?

NOPE


a walker is less versitle than a tank due to balance of the actual mech, low claibers work just fine, but tank cannons are much harder to do, not to mention much heavier

There is a role to fill: tanking. MBTs actually are weak against concentrated firepower. In a large MBT vs. MBT battle a tank only can last for a few seconds before it has to retreat to repair or blow up like that. What we need are moving covers with lots of armor but little firepower to slowly push battle lines in large scale battles.

I could imagine large tripoded mechs that provide shelter in all directions for a single vehicle like a sundy and also act as cover for tanks behind them, like a moving bunker.

I'm pretty neutral on whether there should be mechs in Planetside. On the one hand, I recognize the inherent difficulty of balancing mechs, but at the same time I do not believe that it is impossible to balance.

I'd see several options of balancing mechs.
1. Specific vulnerabilities. For example weakness to EMP grenades and/or new to be introduced EMP guns for infantry and vehicles.
2. Cost. If you make a Mech cost 750 resources, and suspend all resource regeneration while piloting one, the cost could balance out its strength to quite an extent.
3. Weak weapons, specific role. What would happen if you made a mech, gave it about the same weapon selection as a Max, more armor, and for example a shield bubble comparable to the medic shield, but larger and more effective? Or even a shield more comparable to the NC Max shield, and bigger so that other units can shelter behind it.
4. Make its weapons large, but inaccurate vs. infantry. What if the only weapons available to a Mech would be a very heavy AP cannon, heavier than the AP cannon on a vanguard and an AA cannon equivalent to twin-skyguards? It would give it weapons against its prime threats (air and armor), but not be very effective vs. infantry.
5. Make it require implant power to use (although this could bring it close to P2W). I could imagine that you make mechs which can only be operated if you have a specific implant slotted, which consumes implant energy at a prodigious rate (faster than Tier 3 implants).

If SOE made a mech with several/enough of these balancing options, I wouldn't be particularly worried if they introduced it.

And just to add, if I understand the upcoming phases on how resources will work in Planetside in the future, balancing it would be even easier. If mechs cost a vast amount of resources, then a force using too many mechs would soon find itself deprived of resources to replace any losses. If a Mech would cost as much resources to spawn and/or maintain in the field as 5 prowlers, I would not mind if it was, on an individual basis, twice as powerful as a single prowler.