[Suggestion] The lack of BFRs makes it not feel like a complete Planetside experience.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by AntDX316, Nov 9, 2022.

  1. Demigan

    That's why I proposed a lighter BFR instead.

    We could do it both though: A heavy BFR and a light BFR. One for more MBT-style combat but with an infantry mobility and one for a more dodge-and-avoid-damage combat designed to make the most out of cover and it's infantry mobility by having a higher speed&acceleration than the Heavy BFR.



    If it's big and heavy, yes it should be slow. But a light walker? The only reason we don't think of walkers as fast is because we haven't been able to design the complex legs and their movement yet and model it well constantly while on the move taking the terrain into account (one reason why we know that computers haven't surpassed us in some things).

    But why would you hide behind a building that is occupied by infantry if you are vulnerable to it? I mean most MBT's avoid a building occupied by infantry for that very reason and will instead shell said building from a small distance. Your Heavy BFR's would do the same whenever they can before moving up once their infantry has moved up and made it safe(r).

    That's why I want a lightly armored BFR that uses a combination of infantry mobility, speed and firepower to keep itself safe. Again, that doesn't mean a Heavy BFR couldn't exist, just that it has less reason too unless you specifically handicap it similar to how the MAX is handicapped. Unfortunately it would also mean handicapping the Heavy BFR's ability to even reach fights, making less people pick it for bases farther apart.

    But that's the beauty: You swap out what protects them.

    The Harasser survives mostly on it's speed and acceleration, but that is also why the Harasser is a drain on a fight. Most of the time when it escapes it doesn't feel earned and the fight is simply reset, while in reverse the targets of the Harasser cannot escape once the fight goes badly.

    The Light BFR would fix that: Yes it cannot instantly escape and it's vulnerable to the infantry around it. But that doesn't mean it's dead just because infantry arrives: It would have the ability to dodge rockets at longer ranges, use cover to minimize exposure to attacks/repair up and have some neat weapons to retaliate against said infantry and minimize the time they can attack the Light BFR.

    You could easily give the Light BFR the gears of old: It accelerates quickly to say 20km/h in any direction, then requires a moment to speed up to 30km/h. If you then hit the sprint button you can reach 40 to 50km/h (perhaps with a gear inbetween as well) but lose combat capability either because the arms are in a sprinting position or because the COF increases while sprinting. That makes it well able to quickly change direction and do some maneuvers in tight spaces and also gives it the speed to get around on the battlefield.

    In very open terrain other vehicles would likely be superior. But that doesn't mean the Light BFR would be useless. Quite the opposite in fact, since you wouldn't use the Light BFR's in a vacuum. The vehicles might not want to push up close to the cover the infantry is using, but the Light BFR's can push up under cover of the vehicles trying to pop infantry and then round the corner, beat the everliving crap out of infantry hiding behind it and then get back into cover of their allied vehicles. It's not a guaranteed wipe for infantry and it carries risks with it ofcourse, but that's a good thing. You don't want situations where one side is completely incapable of defending against a particular threat aside from a few specific one's (like 4 tanks against 1 infantry dude out in the open).

    AP Lightning would be far superior. Kills ESF faster and has more range and chance to actually hit heavier aircraft due to it's higher muzzle velocity, lower shell drop and lack of COF. You are basically promoting a shotgun with limited elevation to be an effective ambush weapon against aircraft.


    You first mentioned arms and mentioned multiple times that it would be like a MAX, so I assumed scaled up MAX arms or something like the arms on the NC BFR/MAX picture you posted. But as I mentioned: That is just aestetics and doesn't impact the idea itself.

    This one looks cool. The idea of Auto-cannons to be more prominent in the game I wholeheartedly agree with as they would break with the stupid idea of "anti-infantry has more AOE" which is used everywhere. Yes you can make AI weapons with AOE, but don't make it an exclusive feature!

    You are correct in that they would not be as good against infantry while still having some light AV ability. However with how it cannot follow aircraft it would mean it wouldn't fulfill it's G2A role half as well as ESF noseguns would.

    That would make the idea of making both a Heavy BFR and a Light BFR more viable: You have the option for a more ground vehicle oriented BFR with anti-infantry capabilities and the ability to stand up to aircraft trying to stay in the fight, and a light BFR that can shred through aircraft as fast as aircraft can shred it with more AI firepower.

    Only if that TB is nerfed compared to the Liberator. It's waaay to powerful to have a full TB on a BFR, even if it is slow. The range of a TB is a lot farther than people seem to realize since it's mounted on a rather large aircraft which goes pretty darn fast. But on a ground vehicle? Ouch time!

    I would rather have auto-cannons closer to a Saron/Enforcer/Viper mix. Highly accurate, high velocity, small AOE, can be rapidfired but with increasing COF or slow fired for long-range combat. A close aircraft or light vehicle can be SHREDDED with a sudden burst and longer range vehicles and aircraft can still be engaged but at the cost of DPS (and heavy ground vehicles can receive a decent chunk of damage with rapidfire).


    I think you are underestimating the damage a good TB can do, and the strength of infantry mobility to get the drop on vehicles. The reason most infantry isn't that capable against tanks isn't their lack of attacking from odd angles, but their damage. The BFR would fix that, and a TB would take that over the top since it's far easier to launch an attack, jump back into cover and redo it.

    Not entirely a good example. The Prowler is a powerhouse in it's own right and very well suited for longer range engagements. Having a CQC topgun on a platform that is likely to find a situation where shelling at range is a great option just doesn't help much, as the driver would have to actively avoid that situation and do work getting closer just to get the CQC topgun to work. If you were to turn it around and give the driver the CQC weapons though... Suddenly you would find topgunners with a long-range weapon be in CQC fights all the time.
    But on a BFR, even a Heavy one, designed to fight around that weapon? Well it would work just like the Harasser: Players are encouraged to get themselves into advantageous positions to use it from the get-go. Regardless of this being a "let them come in close and I'll kick their teeth in with my TB from the front and repair up/reload behind cover faster than regular MBT's could pop in and out of cover" or "I'll sneak around and tear them a new one using my infantry mobility.



    Again, I think the best solution would be to pick both. A Heavy BFR that can leverage cover but isn't weak in more open field combat and a lighter BFR that is far more dependent on it's agility, cover and rapid firepower to get the job done. Just don't go for a full TB. The Spur, Vector and a bunch of Auto-cannons as options on one side and a variety of grenade/rocket/missile launchers on the other would be a great mix I think.
  2. BengalTiger

    Wow, what a post...

    Well isn't the MAX already filling the role of the light walker?
    Come to think of it, MAXes are basically power armor. And they're overpriced in my opinion. Way overpriced.

    I guess a Harasser mech and a tank mech make sense.
    I will agree there's room for more than power armor, but less than walking tank, but they'd have to ensure the good old MAX does not become obsolete by accident.

    Now regarding engineering issues - well, rolling is just simply more energy efficient than walking.
    Then if you want to get things bigger, ground pressure becomes a problem.
    Then if you want to go from a "walker" to a "runner", each step becomes a hard, dynamic impact on the ground. Now some sort of massive suspension is needed, but that removes from the weight budget for other stuff.

    So forget the walking buildings.
    Would sink into the ground.

    For speed and open terrain, conventional vehicles.
    But defending say a tech plant or amp station, mechs would run around in circles if any tank goes inside the built up areas.
    The whole area around Nason's has lots of places a BFR could go through but a tank cannot. Not to mention Amerish mountains.

    I wrote somewhere before that I dream of a Sundy based truck that would be for BFR's like what the Harasser is for the MAX.
    Make it an 8-wheeler. Then top speed of a walker is not an issue anymore. Just transport it.

    Well the big BFR could take its time to duck.
    Like 2 seconds or so from fully standing to fully crouched. That would force the player to plan these motions ahead.

    There's room to play with to make them differ from each other I guess.

    And thus combined arms is born.

    Naah, I meant weapons in place where arms would be. Pictures are good to get a point across.

    Well, the default gun for the Liberator has like 750 m/s bullet velocity. The bullets can follow the planes where the BFR cannot.
    Now to hunt down planes that land too close to the frontline, I guess that is already the domain of the Skyguard and Harasser.

    The smaller BFR could use weapons based off Sundy's guns as primary, and MBT secondary guns as its own secondary. That would solve the issue of agile platform runs around with a tankbuster.

    The small BFR would then come with stuff such as a Walker + Enforcer, or a Kobalt + Halberd. I think it's quite a bunch of punch.

    And heavy autocannons would be a cool option, but I'd think a Viper size gun should be reserved for the big BFR, so the big one gets some perks for being big and relatively clumsy.

    Both builds would bring some flexibility into PS 2's ground vehicles. That does not make them OP by design, as they would have really big trouble if they ran into let's say dedicated anti-vehicle tanks or something.
  3. Demigan

    Its more a Heavy Infantry unit than a Walker. As you say, Power Armor. Which is the step before walkers (one is a worn suit the other is piloted).
    The overpriced is because it can be revived, but I feel they min/maxed it too much. The upsides are so large it needs massive downsides which makes it unfun to fight and unfun to die in once you die due to the downsides. They need less min/maxing to make it a more enjoyable choice.

    Absolutely. Which is why the light BFR would still be so big it cant enter buildings, just move into bases and fight around them.
    Regardless, the MAX needs some alterations anyway.

    There is a persistent belief that walkers arent useful because of reasons like ground pressure and "just shoot the legs" and similar stuff. But ground pressure can be solved by foot design, you can even add parts of the foot specifically designed to stab into the ground for more purchase and climbing capabilities, not to mention leveraging a support pile mechanic to compact the ground and increase stability. A walker shouldnt try to beat tanks where tanks have superior mobility (read: mostly flat ground), they should beat tanks where legs are superior: steep hills, dense forests, rubble-strewn cityscapes, mountains. As much as people think tracks have great cross-country capabilities they are actually very limiting. Well designed walkers would fill in that niche and have superior mobility over tracked/wheeled vehicles in such terrain.
    As for "just shoot the legs". Legs can be armored much more easily than tracks (yes especially at the joints as you can build skirts that completely cover it rather than partially). Additionally the legs are the most erratically moving part of the walker and also the smallest profile making them the hardest part to hit. Any smart shots would be at the hip joints where a miss would still have a good chance of hitting the chassis.

    I'm not saying you said these things, but these are some of the common

    As for fuel efficiency: human legs use 90% of the energy of the last step in the next one. Assuming that kind of capabilities is replicated and then placing the walker in rough terrain would make the walker more efficient than tracked/wheeled vehicles (seriously going uphill in my car at a not very steep angle can increase my fuel consumption with 40% and double it if I am going higher speeds). Again: dont try to beat tracked/wheeled vehicles in their niche. Its like saying tracks are best, even though wheeled vehicles are still in use due to all the advantages wheels have. Its also why I try to design BFR's around mobility in that specific terrain type.

    Also we are still talking about a game with vehicles that can be repaired within two minutes from a flaming wreck to peak condition by a single person and suffer no breakdowns or efficiency loss when tracks/optics/guns are hit (seriously the gun is ironically one of the most vulnerable parts of a tank).

    Yes!

    A transport just to transport BFR's wouldnt be a good thing gameplay wise. Players wouldnt be willing to do it just for BFR's, you'd need to give that truck some very compelling roles to make it prevalent enough for BFR's to use as well.
    It would be simpler to add a travel mode or simply letting it sprint fast enough to get around in decent time.

    Yep! Combined arms is nothing more than "two or more units working together is better than apart". Considering we currently have a badly designed rock-paper-scissors system that mostly segregates them rather than lets them work together these BFR's would be a step in the right direction.

    Yeah, I was thinking more of this design for the lighter BFR to make it more infantry-like (and I hope this works images into this forum always give me trouble):

    [IMG]



    I was thinking more about the DPS they put out and how easily the aircraft can get out of lethal range compared to another aircraft which can follow and finish the job. Thats why I would imagine guns capable of killing aircraft quickly in a decisive engagement rather than give the aircraft time to get out like all G2A weapons.
    Its also another reason why I want more Harasser health and resistances: an aircraft surprising the light BFR would be able to win, but the other way around the light BFR would be able to shred the aircraft just the same.

    I'm not sure if weapons like the the Fury, Basilisk and Walker are adequate. Even the Walker is a spray&pray design relying on many bullets to compensate for its DPS which is once more designed to give aircraft a chance to escape.
    It would rather be the other way around: the MBT topguns become the primary weapons. I'd run around with a Vulcan, Halberd, Saron or even the Boombox first and the Sundy secondary second.
    I'd prefer the auto-cannon route you proposed as well. Smaller versions than the Viper ofcourse to signal its lighter nature, but effective nonetheless.

    Yes! It needs to be integrated in the current game. I think they have a good niche to fulfill without needing to be limited to Bastion/Colossus type vehicles like some people suggest.
  4. BengalTiger

    Yep. I'd start with setting up damage modifiers so the MAX does not need 10x the amount of bullets to kill as compared to normal infantry.
    5x will be plenty. Maybe even 4x would still work good.
    Then increase effective weapon range twice or so. So a MAX can still hit infantry at 100 meters.

    The price tag should not be more than 300 nanites too.

    Well ground pressure is a function of:
    Weight.
    Surface.

    More weight = more ground pressure.
    More surface = less ground pressure.

    Support piles driven into the ground would work, but then it could take even several minutes per step for something with the weight of a locomotive.

    With the weight of say 20-30 tons things are still much easier. That's about a Matilda II tank, and that thing was thiccccc.

    Agree.

    Going uphill trades energy from your fuel into potential energy. Not good example.


    There is some sort of logic of (with increased weight) vehicles go from small wheels to big wheels to more bigger wheels to tracks to lots of tracks.

    Then make it like a large cab, with 1 turret. The front serves like a Sundy.
    The rear half is a cargo platform. It would sort of mimic a HEMMT or something.
    Downside would be to lose the shields/cloaking device/etc. specialties.

    This would also limit the size of BFR's a bit, as they'd have to fit on the cargo bed.

    Two different units.
    Mass use of infantry or tanks or air alone is not combined.

    And the only thing that currently kind of can mix in with various units against various targets would be an ESF, otherwise there's more than 1 crew involved.
    The ground is missing something like that right now.

    That thing's kind of on the tall-ish side.

    Why have actual human-like mechanical hands when they're not exactly necessary...???

    Then this would probably break the game. Even a dual Walker Sundy or Skyguard still need lots of effort to actually shoot down a plane.
    Mind you a dual Walker Sundy is 3 players...

    Also keep in mind that if a tank can exist for some time under air attack, not to mention infantry, then planes also need a longer time to kill.
    It's just the flow of the game here.

    For a bit more realism there's War Thunder. It's a completely different flow over there, where usually spotting and hitting a target equals winning.

    Here there's sort of a duel, either both sides shooting each other, or the defending side having often several seconds to react in some way (find cover or call friendlies or whatever).

    I guess it would work too.

    So small BFR with like a Halberd and a Fury for anti tank, a Cannister and Bulldog or Kobalt vs infantry, like a Trawler & Walker for AA.

    Large BFR - primary weapons of Vektor (for AA), Viper or M75 Fang (for general purpose), a Tankbuster (close range AT). Secondary weapons would be lolpods (general use), Coyote missiles (AA) and Hornets (AT).

    Mixing weapons would allow mixing missions.

    Durability - light one more/less a Harasser, heavy more/less a tank.

    Speed - light one 50 km/h sprint, 30 km/h sustained. Needs truck. Heavy - 30 km/h sustained. No sprint. Needs truck a lot.
  5. Demigan

    Additionally make its speed the same as regular infantry, and perhaps trade some of its health for shield so you are less dependant on repairs. It could be a slower recharging shield or something, just make sure MAX's arent forced to have people supporting them all the time.

    The piles would use a small-scale version. The compacting nature of piles isnt what you rely on to keep a building steady, its the pile resting on firmer ground deep below the surface. But by designing the foot to have a series of deliberate short spikes for example you can increase purchase and divide your weight over a larger surface (some of the force gets distributed sideways as well). Its basically a snow-shoe but for walkers. The extra bonus is that on slippery slopes or when climbing steep inclines you arent reliant on friction to prevent slipping.

    Hell some dogs use something similar, their nails are build like scoops so they can dig into the ground for faster acceleration.

    I'd imagine these things to be closer to 10 tons than 30. For 20+ tons I would use spider-like walkers. Basically a wheeled chassis with legs replacing the wheels. The legs let you use vehicle trench warfare better than preprepared positions a tank needs to drive into, the legs can absorb more recoil giving you a bigger gun on a lighter chassis, its feet can easily be designed to have more surface area total than current tanks do and circumvent the weight&size limit of tanks (yes, tanks hit that sooner than a good spidertank would!).

    It also means that a rolling object needs to counteract the force trying to roll it backwards when in operation, something that legs dont have to deal with.

    But lets put it differently then: a foot only cares where its placed, a wheel or track will feel every change (and anti-tank mine) it comes across. Just going from a regular road to a flat grassland is a pretty big change in fuel efficiency. People rarely realise it because the engine is rarely at its maximum power output so it barely changes (and people will often compare bioligical features to mechanical ones rather than assume mech legs are of similar mechanical nature as the wheels and tracks).

    A little bit. Which is why proper foot design is so important. If you look around you'll find many walkers to have artistic representations that make no sense, like spikes for feet (as in just a spike, not a surface with spikes on). Proper feet design for walkers would include methods to spread the force not just down but also sideways, and also ways to temporarily increase it when necessary. You could imagine tendrils/tentacle like structures that are soft and moveable until electrified when it stiffens, letting you spread your force across a large area even if its uneven.

    I'm not sure how that would help? At best it would offer a single trip to the front where it deploys, then the BFR loses its ride and is on its own again.

    While official terminology says its different arms working together the same principle applies within the arm. A scout tank spotting for its bigger MBT's is the same cooperation as that scout tank coordinating an airstrike. We need both combined arms and that cooperation within the arms.


    It was the shape I was going for, not the size.

    Because you may use a controlscheme where arms are easier to learn and master, and because arms can fulfill multiple purposes. Those armed mechs arent just capable of wielding weapons, with a simple oversized shovel they can dig trenches, they can carry stuff etc. That could also be the explanation for why they exist: just like the MAX they were an attempt at carrying weight around which was just militarized.
    If the control is by directly plugging the mind in you basically need no time to learn it. You just move your leg, the machine registers and moves its leg. You move the arm, it moves the arm. You can use the sensors in the foot to feel the terrain and balance it, you can feel the weight of the machine, the propriocepsis of where its arms and legs are and what they are doing. If you run out of ammo or an enemy comes close you can kick, punch, rip off vulnerable parts of a vehicle etc.

    How would it break the game? By putting aircraft on the same level of vulnerability as its ground counterparts against one opponent?

    Depends heavily on the type of air attack.

    While the aircraft has that option the ground units do not. Infantry is so fragile they are dead before they can do anything meaningful in most cases and vehicles dont have the speed or cover opportunities to withstand an air attack. And while an aircraft with the worst loadout imagineable can still escape almost any engagement against dedicated G2A weapons the ground units are virtually helpless with more than 90% of the loadouts available.

    You really think a Hornetstrike followed immediately by a TB strike which can then be followed by another Hornet strike is fair and balanced?

    And I pointed out the Walker was specifically not the design I was going for as its designed to let aircraft live, which is why I proposed A2A noseguns instead as well as the auto-cannons. Cannons which would not be Vipers due to their lack of range and accuracy.
  6. BengalTiger

    On board.

    Track pads also come in various shapes and sizes, NATO commonly has rubber inserts to not destroy roads, Soviet Union commonly used all metal links to bite into terrain better. These tricks exist and are utilized in one form or another.

    So heavy BFR being....

    [IMG]

    NOTE: mechs in this depiction are too large, I'm guessing it's around 7 meters tall or so, should be 4 or 5, but they do look the part. Cut the turret profile down significantly, and a bit of the ground clearance.

    Then we can talk about a 30 tonner with MBT armor.
    Smaller weapons, less of an engine so less space needed to armor, thus a thick skin at less weight than an actual tank.

    Then the light one could be a 10 ton class and bipedal.

    I get the point. It's just that a wheeled vehicle can roll back down a hill unpowered. Oh, if it's got a battery it could charge it up using gravity to go from potential energy into electrical energy.

    [IMG]

    :D

    After the base is capped the logistics dude spawns a new one. This is PlanetSide 2 after all.
    Not really a big issue. Just like MAXes riding around in Harassers sometimes.

    Agree.

    OK.

    [IMG]
    This is attached by probably 2 giant pins or bolts. No need for fingers, or trigger discipline.

    But hydraulic arms on something that carries not only weapons I guess are justified.

    Disclaimer - BFR's as seen in PS 1 also had weapons instead of arms, not weapons held by robotic arms.

    It takes a few seconds for a Vanguard to get destroyed by Hornets right now. Thus anti-tank weapons against a tank.
    Same with tank vs tank, or tank vs bazooka.

    So it should also take a few seconds to shoot down an airplane.

    Yeah, I guess a Tankbuster + Dalton + Bulldog Liberator will destroy tanks effectively.
    But that's 3 players in a dedicated setup.
    This dedicated setup dies after like 2 hits from the Vanguard's new big chungus cannon as well...

    Skyguard gets bonus points defending against one because it can obscure the view of the gunship crew by wall of flak explosions.

    Well that's the whole point of air, firepower and mobility.
    Just relatively not protection.

    I don't know how long you're around, but waaaaaay back in the day when Planetside 2 was still SOE, the developers decided it would be better to just give players anti-air damage points, rather than buffing up AA weapons.

    If a big f***ing robot manages to sneak up on my to use the TB then it's shame on me.
    Hornets fly at about half the speed of tank shells. It's therefore possible to pull out of cover, fire, reverse back, hit the target and then watch the missiles fly overhead.

    So yeah, it's balanced in my opinion. The BFR will have to work hard to get into tankbuster range, so it'll mostly be firing slow flying missiles, which at long range are less effective than tank shells. Especially as BFR's would be big enough to hit from beyond 500 meters if they decide to not duck so they can guide the missile to target.

    If there's a light and heavy BFR then I guess the fighter nose gun makes sense on the lighter one.

    Vortek Rotary (sorry, I'm mainly NC so I reference with an NC bias here) needs 42 hits on target beyond 200 meters. That's a bit shy of 3.5 seconds of 100% accurate fire. As a close in system it would shred.

    Skyguard - 31 hits or a bit over 3.8 seconds. Skyguard has slight bonus of doing damage even without direct hits due to proximity fuse shells. It also has a slight disadvantage as at long range shells will shotgun so much that some might not trigger, even if aimed properly.

    Oh and let's settle the Vektor vs ESF's - 5.7 seconds, and probably the furthest reach of these weapons.

    I guess it would all work out just fine in the end.
  7. AntDX316

    holy s@#!, the art of the conceptual BFR robots are amazing
  8. Amador

    As a PS1 Veteran, I am going to give you a recollection of historical events and explain why I have significant reservations when it comes to the reintroduction of Battleframe Robotics (BFR).

    I was actually there to see what happened to Planetside 1 before and after the BFR's introduction.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    In the beginning when BFR's were introduced, there was a "honeymoon" phase. Where just about every person who was online during the launch of that expansion was present and conducted a ceasefire within the cavern systems.

    Why? Because the BFR's required a lengthy "attunement" process by which players had to participate within the caverns, and all 3 factions cooperatively participated in base capture "trading". Players willingly did this because the "attunement" process would have been absolute hell to obtain while in conflict.

    ... That "attunement" process was meant to act as a limiting factor, which the community circumvented entirely at the cost of their own detriment.

    However in the aftermath of the "honeymoon" phase, "disgust" towards people who used BFR's did rapidly grow - all because they became so increasingly common to the point of being obnoxious. This caused a significant resentment which spread through the community and resulted in some players just quitting the game outright.

    Why? Because Planetside was becoming less about conventional war, and more about idolizing the "Gundam Wing" fantasy.

    Do not be fooled... This very kind of "disgust" already exists within Planetside 2 towards players that use A2G ESF's. However, it is but only a fraction of the contempt that BFR users would likely receive in comparison due to how toxic Planetside 2 has become.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    I will say this as a warning.

    If Planetside 2 ever became so foolish to bring BFR's back for whatever reason, if it be desperation or pure insanity...

    ... Then BFR's must never become a common or standard vehicle for the everyman. BFR's must be as infrequent or rare as a Colossus tank which requires the Polystellarite (rare) Outfit resource. BFR's must also be limited in number which is suitably based upon their vehicular strength respectively.

    If BFR's become as common as a standard vehicle, then the damage upon game and community will be irreparable.
  9. BengalTiger

    I take it that a PS 1 BFR would not be in trouble if it was caught by 1 (one) MBT out in the open.

    If the heavy BFR variant would be as tough as a main battle tank, then the Colossus would remain the ultimate ground vehicle.

    We're just dreaming of a new type of vehicle, with strengths, weaknesses and all sorts of issues to make sure it would not be an I-win button.
    Everybody who's been around saw what early OP airplanes, HE tanks, the Harasser (back when it was released), the AV MANA turret, the Annihilator launcher, and all the other flavor of the month weapons and gear did to the early days of PS 2.

    I do think that PS 2 has learned its lessons, as the new MBT guns or the Corsair are new additions but they are in no way OP and are not an easy answer for all the roles that other vehicles and weapons play in the game.

    In fact if Demigan's and my visions would be implemented, they'd probably be quite underwhelming in some regards:
    -In a straight up slugfest with anything equipped for anti-vehicle use they'd just be bigger targets, forcing them to use terrain more.
    -In an open environment they'd be much slower and much taller tanks, thus at a disadvantage.
    -While flexible, their raw firepower would not exactly be as much as a dedicated tank for a given role. Maybe except AA, where they could carry 2 dedicated weapons like a fighter or gunship.

    Their saving grace would be the new game mechanics they'd introduce:
    -Ability of a vehicle to duck behind cover (at least the size of a tank, being how they'd stand 4-5 meters tall and duck down to 2.5-3 meters tall)
    -Due to walking nature they'd be able to strafe, and climb up slopes only accessible by infantry right now (or the occasional turbo Harasser that has a good driver)
    -Be able to have one player with two weapons on a ground vehicle, which only exists as a MAX right now.
    -They'd have an advantage in close or uneven terrain due to the type of weapons equipped, and the elevation and depression angles a gun or launcher mounted as an "arm" could achieve.

    I seriously don't think they'd break the game at all. Most folks by far agree we don't need shields, we don't need flight, we already have it that tanks (both light and main) can operate with one player on board, so this would not screw with players needed for a given capability too much.
  10. Amador

    Here, I'll try and put BFR's into perspective while using relatable terminology from Planetside 2.
    • BFR were basically a Magrider tank, where it retains its mobility, stands vertically, but can't float over water. Meaning they would sink to the bottom if submerged in water. They all had little thruster jets in the leg area which would allow them to turn in place or strafe left or right. Meaning that in PS2 terms, they could always face their frontal armor towards their target.

    • BFR would have 5000 HP baseline while paired with a Colossus tank's projection shield which can soak up an additional 5000 HP, which is always active and constantly regenerating. However, the projection shield would not protect against small arms fire while loaded with AP ammo. In PS2 terms, basically only a NC6A GODSAW could damage it directly while in alternate firemode.

    • BFR projection shields also had a "weakpoint" on the rear that can be damaged by almost all weapons if hit directly - which would shutdown the shield for several seconds making the BFR chassis vulnerable. BFR's were also highly vulnerable to "Stun Grenades" which is what players now know as EMP Grenades. Back in Planetside 1 stun grenades would "weapons lock" vehicles for several seconds, and while used against a BFR, it would temporarily disable their shield making them vulnerable.

    • BFR also withstood regional damage. If you shot the BFR in the arms, then the guns would become damaged and lose some accuracy and/or have a reduction in rate of fire. Or if the legs became damaged, they would move a little bit more slowly. I believe if it was hit in the torso, then some of its enemy detection sensors would stop working. If I recall correctly.

    • BFR have different weapon types. Not only did they have anti-tank weapons, but they could be outfitted with anti-infantry and even... anti-aircraft weapons. Yep... BFR's once could act like a Skyguard.
    • BFR could actually crouch like an infantryman which can be used to increase their accuracy at range, but they couldn't move while they remained crouched. It was more practical for improving accuracy, rather than helping it "hide" behind cover.

    • BFR have a secondary gunner position, allowing them additional firepower. Ranging from anti-tank cannons to multi-role weapons.

    • BFR aerial variants wouldn't have a gunner position, but they could actually jump like Light Assault with Icarus Jets and they never took fall damage even if out of boost. The aerial variant's projection shield would be disabled while it became airborne and it would be considered an aircraft and can withstand flak damage. --- Do you know that huge wall at the Bastion on Amerish? If a BFR had a running start, it would be able to easily jump the distance between the east to west tower. It was that insane.
    Flight Variant BFR in Planetside


    That should cover most of the meat and potatos.

    I would be inclined to believe that the Colossus tank would have the advantage, simply because of sheer firepower from having 5 guns firing all at once. But of course a BFR's primary strength came from its projection shield, meaning that if it engaged in hit-and-run tactics, it might be able to whittle away the Colossus tank assuming that the BFR has enough ammo to press the fight.

    If I were to speculate, I believe one Colossus tank versus two BFR's might be an even fight.

    ... Keep in mind that finding at least two BFR's present on the front lines in PS1 was more frequent than a single Colossus in PS2. The presence of at least one BFR in the area was commonplace, and there could easily be more at any given moment.

    Imagine seeing 4 or 6 BFR's standing around on a hilltop and you have to figure out how you'll infantry rush them. The kind of stuff that'll make your blood boil.

    Well, the new MBT guns should've been Directive Rewards for tankers who had earned Auraxium medals on at least 2/3 or 3/3 tank turrets. Now most tankers seem to be using them, which has made the AP turret fall into obscurity.

    But of course, that's just another mistake the Dev's made which can't be undone.

    Considering the fact that Planetside 2 Dev's have historically proven that they're more than willing to nerf things into the ground in favor of infantry combat, I'm inclined to agree.
  11. AntDX316

    Did anyone even play Battlefield 2142? They weren't too OP. A couple RDX explosives and it's dead. People didn't care too much about camping for them. Another mech on the other team shows up and they 1v1. The other mech left standing is either on fire or has half HP. If BFRs can be damaged by AMRs and weakpoints further increase the damage taken they would be garbage to use.

    Sure.. they might be OP during low population but even during low population people know to pull out AA/AT.

    If it cost as much to pull a BFR as it does a Bastion or even 2 Colossus it would be 100% balanced to start for the one's attacking it but for the one that spawned it.. it's not.

    A couple Light Assault C4 and AT engineers dropping non-stop from valks, some MBT formations forming up, liberators, harassers, goodbye BFR easy. Even a couple ESFs by themselves can easily take out a Colossus. 3 harassers can take out a Colossus.
  12. Amador

    Yes, I did play BF2142 back in the day for a short period of time. Their robots were called "Battlewalkers" or just "Walkers" for short. Walkers really weren't that impressive, as they were just highly mobile weapon platforms with moderate armor in comparison to a main battle tank.

    Imagine having a BFR, which is a technologically advanced vehicle that is monstrous in size, but is regarded as trivial as a single Lightning tank on the battlefield. Then what meaning do they have? Why bother having the Dev's spend all that time and effort to reintroduce BFR's, but only to have BFR's be as weak and disposable as a Lightning tank?

    A BFR in principle should be "powerful" in its own way, but restricted in presence like a Colossus tank is. What made BFR's "powerful" in Planetside 1 was that it was the only vehicle with a continuously regenerating projection shield. Meaning that it could soak vehicle projectiles and even regenerate before taking direct hull damage.

    The true problem about BFR's in Planetside 1 was that too many people had them.
  13. AntDX316

    yeah, Battle Walkers. I think I was max rank in Battlefield 2142. I was max rank in the games prior to that and after. It's a shame the game died out but the previous games still exist. Fortunately we have Planetside 2 and it's basically that game but way way better of course. :)
  14. Amador

    Are you sure about that? Because Titan Mode gameplay in BF 2142 was still better than what they did with Bastions in PS2.

    Battlefield 2142 Titan Tutorial


    Imagine if Planetside Dev's made it so that after all the Hardpoints were destroyed on the Bastion, it would then become immobile. And you would have to actually assault the Bastion carrier with Galaxies and Valyries using infantry, and then destroy the reactor within causing the complete destruction of the Bastion.

    I guess the PS2 Dev's really nailed that Bastion revamp, yeah?
  15. AntDX316

    Everyone knows about the Titans. I hoped they did the same on Planetside 2 but it seems with the engine, peple fall through the Bastion when it's moving.
  16. BengalTiger

    Wow, holy nanites.

    The flight variant is all sorts of ... let's say... bad design decisions.
    I'd describe what I truly think of that with proper words, but it would be waaay too obscene.

    Due to this thread having long walls of text, here's a summary of where PS 2 BFR's would be, based on consensus of a few writers including myself:

    BFR's would come in a light and heavy variant.
    They'd stand about as tall as a Sundy including its turrets. They would not fly.

    Damage resistance:
    Light version - Harasser level armor, so 3 to 4 Decimator hits to destroy it.
    Heavy - equal to MBT, so 4 to 6 hits (5 to 7 for the NC version).

    Only defense advantage would be that they can duck for cover and stand up to shoot above it.

    Speed:
    Light version - 50 km/h sprint, maybe 35 km/h sustained, and some 15-20 walking pace to retain weapon accuracy.
    Heavy version - 30-ish km/h max, with the option to walk slow for better accuracy.

    Speed at serious disadvantage compared to everything.
    Firing on the move capability much below that of tanks.

    Infantry-like ability to climb slopes. Ease of navigating tight corners.

    Firepower:
    The light one would use an ESF based gun as main weapon, and a tank based secondary for its own secondary.
    The heavy one would use a Liberator based nose gun, and an ESF based secondary.

    Large firing arcs due to weapons being mounted in place of "arms".
    Flexibility of two different weapons for one player to use.

    No raw firepower advantage though, except the light one would be strong in AA at very close range.


    I think these shields are a very unpopular idea right now. Damage avoidance by using cover is much more skill based.

    Which is why by far most people would like them scaled down quite a bit.

    We can have power armor, jet packs, hovertanks, force field shields, flying warships and everything in between, so I don't see why Big F***ing Robots do not have a place on Auraxis.

    Well with PS 1 BFR's no wonder.

    Yaaaay!

    Yep, it's been done before, it can be done again.
  17. JibbaJabba

    You know what would bring back that nostalgic feeling of Planetside 1 even more than BFRs?

    There not being a game. Yeah, nothing says Planetside 1 like not existing. Know what made that happen? BFRs. So yeah, keep making your forums posts. Beg until you get it back. Then you'll get BFRs in Planetside 2 as well as Planetside 2 not existing just like Planetside 1.

    I speak only for myself but I'll say it again: If you put BFRs in this game, I quit. Period. Bye. Save your argument, I've already heard it.
  18. AntDX316


    Why didn't you quit when Bastions entered the game?
    • Up x 1
  19. Amador

    Yes, the flight variant of the BFR was indeed very, very mobile. With a running headstart to gain momentum it easily could leap across an entire bridge connecting two separate shorelines and if you "pulse" the jump jets you can milk the distance a little further.

    As depicted in that prior video, under the right circumstances, it is able to jump across that entire AMP Station lengthwise.

    I know you're trying to provide direct "stats" to describe your vision of a BFR, but I feel as if it would be more easily relatable if used in simpler terms...

    ... From what you are saying, are you essentially proposing that "New PS2 BFR's" should be less like vehicles and more like an oversized exosuit? As in, a large robot that simply has the same mobility as an infantryman?

    So... Basically like a Titan from Titanfall or maybe even like an Elemental from Mech Warrior, in PS2 format?

    Or, even simpler yet... It's just a MAX Suit that's 3 to 5 times larger than normal and is meant for outdoor use?
  20. BengalTiger

    Yep, and I take it it was more mobile than a buggy while having more armor and firepower than a tank.

    Yeah pretty much. More like 3x the size and with a cockpit for the pilot like in a mech, rather than being a suit.
    Seems the Titans are a bit taller.

    I think this would show the right proportions:
    [IMG]