So when are the BFRs coming?

I don't think my idea would have been understood without the explanation. Even with the explanation many players still think I'm asking for a harder-than-MBT's with an insta-kill machine gun. So I add a little fluff and explanation to sketch the idea.

That's so true it hurts

This isn't BFR, but still... there is a new tank on PTS that (surprisingly) nobody mentioned on this forum yet:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DBGpatchno...ts_20170519_unofficial_patch_notes_new_alert/
Vid (not mine):

It is not mentioned because it's not 100% new. It's an asset we saw already more than 1 year ago.

The point is that will be part of a new alert type we still know nothing about.

Just tried to spawn one, but it seemed impossible. Apparently Shaql has to spawn it in. But it seems not to be a hoax because one of the "unlocks" I got when I started up the PTS was a "Prototype main turret" with a similar icon to the one displayed here.

ITs funny we have 100 different weapons, LMGs, carbines, pistols. All of these do the same thing, kill the enemy, most even have multiple 'optimum' guns for each range.
The devs recently have even added a whole other section of guns, that for all intents and purposes, do exactly the same thing as the rest of the guns.

So i have to ask, if its ok for the devs to spend hours / resources on new projectile slingers with no real reason, or indeed additional role added to the game, why does creating a new vehicle require such a thing?

As a Starsiege vet and Mechwarrior wannabe vet (Mech 4 always crashed on my box (haven't played the latest one yet)), I wholeheartedly want to see BFR's in. Change the name though.

BFR's could be balanced a number of different ways. There's no reason not to put them in, and all it will be is a giant money rake for the company. I can't believe it wasn't a priority for them. This company seems to specialize in ways to avoid making money, even with Reddit and the forums filled with great ideas to make tons of money and people begging for things to drop cash on and reasons to sub. It's unusual to throw money at a company and have them throw it back at you.

This game has massive unfulfilled potential, but the company doesn't seem to be run by gamers.

If you can balance it, and in such a way that MBT's/Lightnings don't become obsolete, then I want to hear it.

Naval combat has so much potential... Just think of how cool the empire-specific battleships could be.

I'm afraid it wont happen, at least not in Planetside 2. Forgelight engine doesn't support water.

I think your idea earlier is a reasonable start, but I don't share the perspective of some who want everything to be unique. That might be the ideal, but at some point you run out of room for new stuff if you're holding to that standard.

I think the better approach at this point is to focus on on minor and niche variants, which seems to be what your idea is.

Another perspective that I think is critical for a game with the issues this one has had, is to focus less on realism and uniqueness and more on cool factor. Cool factor brings in cash and is great for marketing.

Lets say a BFR was created that was a walking duplicate of the Lightning. Some decry that, but what if that alone brought in 1000 long term subs and $100 grand of DBC sales (overall). Given the game seems to be struggling to survive, wouldn't that be worth it?

I'm not saying I want that. I'm just using that as an extreme example and to ask the question, "shouldn't we compromise some to help enlarge the player base?"

I would also like to see a heavier version; ideally three weight classes. Here's a rough idea:

First off, I think the BFR's should all be pretty tall. Tall enough to see over standard height walls, and either allow all of them to be able to shoot over them when standing next to them at an angle that gives, say, 30-40m of safe space next to the wall for defenders, OR, have a cert line that allows for "elevated weapons" and players can specifically cert into weapon that can shoot over walls, still with the same safe zone (assuming level ground)

I just don't like the idea of 'shorty' BFR's. I would much rather have them nerfed in other areas to balance the height. Of course, you could make 'height' cert lines as well, or just have short, medium and tall BFR classes.

1) Light / Scout specialist and inner base harrasser -

Harrasser speed, much lighter weapons that range from small arms power to kobalt power, could also have smaller mags and longer reloads, etc. Harasser armor. Has limited jump capability allowing to get inside almost every base. Additionally, jumping and landing on a vehicle will cause moderate damage depending on vehicle type.

2) Medium / Fire Support and Flanker -

Has Lightning armor and medium weapons. For this medium class, we could either have it move slower than the Lightning and have slightly heavier weapons, or move faster with weaker weapons (or adjust some other parameters). Limited 'baby jumps' for hopping on small rocks, etc.

3) Heavy class -

Same idea as medium class but at the MBT level

Further distinctions -

I'm open to pretty much anything to get these guys in the game. One idea would be the weakspots. For example, upper torso and headshots would be very hardened. You would have to hit the lower legs, feet, and weapons directly to do the most damage.

BFR's could also have sprint meters as a balance. They could have noticeably longer reload times. They could have weapon overheat mechanics, not only to shut down firing for a cool down, but an overheat could damage the weapon and reduce RoF and accuracy. Sprinting beyond the redline of the sprint meter could cause armor damage and engine damage.

They could really take cues from Starsiege and Mechwarrior by adding engines, shield generators, armor types, etc, allowing for more customization, and that could, and should, IMO, be done with all vehicles. Lots of money to be made there.....LOTS.

For example, in Starseige, IIRC, when you had engine damage, you couldn't move as fast, and if you had leg damage, you would turn poorly to that side, etc. Lots and lots of possibilities here.

As I said, I think the devs and playerbase need to seriously think in terms of life and longevity, and less about 'perfection'. Besides, when 4 out of 5 classes can have C4 including medics, and everybody's got med kits.....I think we left the 'unique' factor behind awhile back.

Let's face it. PS2 is never going to achieve greatness. The fact that the company is running a skeleton crew for it speaks volumes. I don't know if I'd bank on them getting PS3 right either. I think our salvation will have to come from elsewhere. So in the mean time, I say, if it's fun and cool, then tweak and balance the best you can, but stick it in there. Stick everything we can into the game and let's hope we can grow the player base.

So basically you want a Heavy MAX that can go anywhere in a facility compound but can''t fit through doorways so it can't actually go inside. An interesting idea to be sure, one that's been suggested before. I actually wished that MAXes were like this in PS2 from the start, but with AA/AV roles instead of AA/AI like you suggest.

They'd have to balance them very carefully though. I can see a few potential issues right off the bat:

1. They could overshadow Burster MAXes too much, reducing the Burster's role to mainly scaring away aircraft once you've been pushed back to your spawnroom. Otherwise why pull a Burster when you can grab one of these instead?
2. They could throw the battle flow of several bases way out of whack. In essence you're suggesting a Harasser-strength 1-man vehicle with dedicated AI that can go anywhere in a facility that isn't specifically indoors. Areas that were explicitly blocked off as infantry-only zones could now be accessed. Bases like Tech Plants, Amp stations, Quartz Ridge, many of the walled-off Esamir bases, etc could play completely differently and might even need redesigns to prevent them being overrun by BFRs who are vying for their own playing field while trying to avoid the scarier tanks outside the base walls..
3. The added farming/spawncamping potential could make base defense a nightmare for infantry because these BFRs could camp from places inaccessible to most vehicles. Especially if they're mobile enough to get on top of buildings. Their added mobility would probably allow them to breach defenses go over obstacles that (non-LA) infantry and ground vehicles need to go around. And base resecure teams would now have to first deal with fighting through these BFRs at many bases - often as infantry since the vterm would probably be camped by a BFR - before they even get near the cap points.

Maybe some of the above issues could be alleviated if they gave the BFRs a weakness that was exploitable by infantry, like low resistance to AV MAX weapons, or a semi-open cockpit allowing small arms fire to take out the driver with precision shots.

To prevent them from overshadowing Burster MAXes, they could also adjust the range of their AA ability, as well as the Burster's, to give one a short range, high DPS role and the other a long range, low DPS one.

No, of course it's not the same. However, they do provide very similar roles. And i *do* think a MAX with 2 half-strength noseguns on its arms would provide a very similar experience and would be 100x easier to implement.. As would a Walker mounted on a Lightning.

It'd be much more cost effective for them to just slap a nosegun weapon - or a Walker - on a Lightning or a MAX and call it a day. And between the two they'd cover most of the role that your BFR would.

Because the recent weapon additions they've made were done using weapon models already in their possession that they just tacked a few spreadsheet numbers onto for damage, ROF, recoil, etc and released with very little dev time required.

But creating a new vehicle class is a lot more time consuming since it would require creating new models, new animations (though they might be able to borrow from existing MAX and infantry animations), possibly new textures, etc. If they made them faction-specific you'd need even more Dev time.

Those 100 different weapons you referenced were made when PS2 had a dedicated staff of like 50 developers, artists, UI designers, etc so they had lots of resources to throw at them and like 2 years of development time before PS2 Launched.

Today's Dev team is tiny in comparison. Something like 1/10th of the original size, and I think most of them split their time between PS2 and other projects (H1Z1, etc).

NEVER!!!
This is the community consensus.

The Devs made the choice and said they were not going to use hardly any of the things that worked for PS1 on PS2. I still think the Inventory system made for way better combat because people actually cared about how much ammo they were spewing down range while not being near Tower. working my way across the continent looting ammo from the NC or lashers from the VS because id run low ahhhh

Me personally I liked how a BFR could turn up when you being hammered by enemy armour and we have none ourselves and the tide of battle could change. having the continents connected and hacking vehicles was awesome, Hacking a BFR out from under a cone vision single driver then jumping the gunner seat and letting rip as a cloaker was awesome

NO IT's NOT!!!

YES, IT IS!
I speak for only one side of the argument.

Way better combat by virtue of having to always having to do space management for even ammunition?
Not seeing how in blazes that would be practical for creating better combat.
Let alone with PS2's other systems, that would likely end badly.

Vehicle hacking, does sound useful however with limitations.

BFS, do sound interesting, depending on how they are set-up.

As a PS1 vet since its beta, the BFR was designed as an Anti-Armor/Fire Support platform. One of the most powerful vehicles a single soldier could pilot, it took a lot of dedication to run a BFR. You had to unlock the "Imprint" by fighting in the caves and meeting a certain criteria, then you had to use a TON of cert points to drive them. And to unlock the Flight Variant you had to qualify with the Gunner Variant first. Basically needing to run an entire character dedicated to BFR piloting.

Many PS1 vets have a negative impression of the BFR because they were very poorly tested, only being on the Test Server for a few days before being pushed live in a horribly overpowered state. A BFR was like Optimus Prime, wrecking everything it saw. This drove away most of those vets and many didn't return once the BFRs were nerfed into a proper role. Post-Nerf BFRs were awesome tools.

Post Nerf BFRs like I stated were relegated to an Anti-Armor role. They had lesser physical armor than an MBT but they did have a powerful shield that constantly recharged, even under fire. This allowed a BFR to shrug off MBT cannons and other "Large" weapons with ease. Each faction had their own stock version with the Anti Tank canons that all operated a bit differently but were about as effective as one another. They didn't have the sheer damage that Tanks could unleash, not able to 1 shot infantry like the Prowler or Vanguard. But it was their shield that made them able to push off tanks, able to beat out a tank or almost any other ground vehicle in a head to head battle by sheer toughness rather than Damage Output. A BFR could even cut power to its movement servos by crouching and divert the power to its Shields. Making it stationary, but even tougher. (A crouching BFR was Orbital Strike bait.) It often took multiple MBTs to down a BFR. And MBTs in PS1 were required to have at least 2 players. One to drive, one to gun. (And a third to gun the Prower, being a 3-man tank.)

What was a BFRs weakness then? Simple.

Infantry.

Infantry was the bane of a BFRs existence. They were unable to aim under their legs too sharply, and the BFRs shield did NOT block "Small Arms" weapons, though it did still block Infantry portable Anti Vehicle weapons. Small Arms went straight through the shield and did damage to the BFR and its various systems. An infantryman could get close and shoot out a BFRs shield generator, leaving the BFR in a very poor position, or do damage to other systems. BFRs were also super vulnerable to the Jammer Grenade, which every infantryman had by default. No certs necessary. While the Jammer on normal vehicles simply stopped the vehicle from being able to shoot for about 8 seconds, it totally scrambled the BFRs systems. Gimping its movement, fire rate and nullifying its shield recharge.

A single infantryman specifically equipped to hunt BFRs could take one down by himself.




So they were extremely reliant on infantry support, and at the same time, could provide support to said infantry by shooing away tanks and other vehicles.

BFRs could certify in specific Anti Infantry or Anti Air weapons, but they weren't nearly as effective. Usually better utilized by the Flight Variant that could get into odd places to hit infantry or literally jump after fleeing aircraft. They also had a few unique "Melee Range" weapons that weren't really used, like the NTU siphon (Imagine basically being able to steal Cortium out of an enemy Silo and run it back to your own base, or use it to generate a local EMP blast.) And the Armor Siphon. (Literally making you a Vampire to enemy vehicles, taking their HP and making it yours.)

Overall their best strength was their sheer toughness and intimidating size. If you were in a battle and a BFR comes strolling in, it becomes most players primary target. Which is falling right into the trap of the BFR. You cant keep it out of a fight for long. It may fall back, but it doesn't need to repair, just recover its shield and come right back, but it doesn't do too much damage all by itself. In PS1 you had to stop and get out and hold still to repair. And Repairing took much longer than it does in PS2 on top of the repair guns taking ammunition you had to resupply from a terminal. Meanwhile, you ARENT shooting at its allies, those MBTs and Lightnings that are MUCH more dangerous than the BFR itself. Letting them clean up your forces with relative ease.

The BFR was a Fire Support/Anti Armor vehicle that seems to fill a role we don't really have in PS2. If a vehicle tries to roll into an area with infantry and actually be support, it just gets nuked by C4. If the BFR were implemented in a similar fashion, they could eat C4 with their shields and still stay close to infantry and take a pounding from AP cannons, LolPods and Daltons, without being farm chariots because they are geared towards fighting off other vehicles than attacking infantrymen. As well as providing mobile cover for its own infantry by also being able to absorb HE blasts with said shields.

I would love to see them return personally.

Sadly, those remaining PS1 vets would likely quit at the first sign of BFRs being added. And sadder yet, is the Dev Team and DBG in general try to distance the game as much as possible from its predecessor. Even if it means recreating problems that were already solved by the original.

1. Bursters, and any curren G2A weapon for that matter, need reworking anyway. Besides that, the Burster MAX has different advantages. Such as being able to fire from buildings, better ability to use cover, smaller hitbox, relatively high resistance vs aircraft weapons compared to the H-MAX/Harasser and the ability to be revived.
2. I don't think it'll be that out of whack. Besides, when using buildings it can be very tough for the H-MAX to retaliate. For example not all windows and doors would be easy to attack, requiring the H-MAX to reposition itself before it can retaliate to infantry in there. Additionally the H-MAX would have momentum in it's movements, including it's looking direction similar to how turrets limit the speed with which you can look around. That would give you enough room to attack it or flank it. But if you end up in front of it's barrel, the H-MAX would have all the power to murder you.
3. Spawncamping is a separate problem that needs to be solved anyway. I don't think they would instantly make Spawncamping that much worse, just another gun pointed at you in a situation where you are unlikely to succeed anyway.

My idea was it's relatively low health/resistance overall. Unlike Harassers it doesn't have an instant-escape button. Add things like slower look ratio's and momentum to your movement and it could easily have a lot of balance. it's low resistance to tanks and relatively low velocity it moves at would also make it vulnerable to enemy vehicles, requiring the vehicle to either support friendly tanks or stick to a base.
I wouldn't mind the H-MAX to get a bunch of equipable AV weapons though. Would be great to use it as an infantry-support weapon to give infantry more punch than with the standard MAX. With the obvious requirement that it needs to stick to rough terrain, cover and base-buildings to survive in a direct confrontation, or be a flanking unit to avoid direct combat.

Just giving them aircraft noseguns would already limit their range immensely.
Aircraft noseguns work because unless you do hover combat there's little you can do to avoid damage. But compared to a unit that can't chase you it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult. Since it becomes hard to hit aircraft a lot faster if you are using an accurate weapon compared to "spam it anywhere near" flak, the nosegun H-MAX would have a shorter effective range. Although it would have better ranged ability to deal with hovering ESF. Which is actually a nice trade-off.

Similar roles, but a very different execution.

Just like a Harasser and MBT provide similar roles, but the Harasser is it's own class in how it executes that role.

No it wouldn't. Because on a MAX it would be much slower than the H-MAX and on the Lightning it wouldn't be able to fulfill it's AI role or it's infantry-support role.
Although I would gladly have a Nosegun/Walker on my Lightning. But if I am going to pick either, it's going to be Nosegun, because as always the aircraft weapons are superior.

INDEED!