If they can't get MAX's right, with more than the handful of options you get on them now. Why add BFR's to the game? There are twenty varieties of MAX's they could do with cert customizations to give them more love in the near future.
Yes because currently there aren't enough vehicles for people to cycle through to ensure they never have to actually touch the ground with their feet. -_- IF they removed most of the current vehicles in lieu of BFRs, maybe it would be entertaining, but I never hear much good about the old BFR's from PS1. Either way, this game is vehicleside 2 right now, and the last thing it needs are more vehicles to spam.
Actually, the Battleships the US fielded were brought out of mothballs for a short period of time because the ship itself was rugged enough to take on missiles that would normally take out other ships. They were considered obsolete because of World War 2 tactics that focused on Carrier based strike forces. But in time, even Carrier based strike forces will give way to a different kind of naval warfare. As for the carrier ships, it isn't because they want them reasonable size... The cost to make such large ships are expensive in means of material and also propulsion wise. Smaller, lighter ships provide for less propulsion needs, even with a nuclear reactor and given most munitions are going to be missile based or using a 5", high powered cannon versus needing something heavier, because again, most naval ships are no longer built as heavily as the old war wagons back then and the missile based weapons out do heavy shell based cannons. The newer ships also focus on speed and ECM and Phalanx anti-missile systems to reduce threats. A good example in comparison - a Japanese Manga called Zipang. Take a current day Aegis Cruiser and employ it against World War II counter parts. The strongest part of the Aegis Cruiser is its ability to make use of better anti-Air components, advance radar and missile systems which are decades more advanced than what the military at that time imagined as well as its phenomenal speed. Even Harry Turtledove's World at War where aliens attacked Earth with what we have equivalent weapons of our time back in 1940s. The current naval focus is about agility over hardened defenses.
It's never going to happen so yall may as well forget about the much hated BFR (mechs). This is what Smedley had to say about them: Source: PSU // Smed's Blog "It's interesting how many comments we get about BFR's. Well you can stop sending the "please don't put BFR's in PS Next" emails. They aren't in there." Smed
Then you just have no idea what you're talking about, or are getting the completely wrong idea from that statement.
Okay, so i'll address this, as much as it pains me. You don't seem to understand that the first and most important aspect of any field of design, be it graphic, artistic, practical, or game design is to 'get it to work'. Part of 'get it to work' is ensuring that it works with everything else in the design and doesn't invalidate other standing ideas, mechanics, and the like. This is called 'Balance'. An imbalanced house can topple over and kill its occupants. -Lack of support struts on key lode barring zones. An imbalanced graphic ad can confuse the consumer and lead to lost sales. -Using Neon Green in a dark blue/red saturated ad. An imbalanced artistic comp can be seen as ugly and causes disgust. -Realism style in Expressionism art By simply bypassing this key and critical step in design just to favor some ones compulsory feeling on a subject and 'giving them what they want' you not only forsake the core of the project, you endanger the whole as you are adding things with out taking into consideration what effects outside of its very limited scope. SoE should know this... after all look Star Wars Galaxies NGE. you don't understand the roles of each of the things you've just mentioned. You think the role is what it can shoot at. an ESF doesn't overlap the roles of a Liberator... a Lighting doesn't overlap the roles of an MBT... an ESF and Lighting are Skirmishers a Liberator and MBT are Sluggers The fault is yours if you can't figure out that. I'm seeing a common thread in your statements... They tend to always be wrong. no where did is say i was 'unable to even fathom how to design (one)...' You're just making things up now. Infact, i do quiet recall saying something along the lines of: "Either you add a Mech as a high mobility Damage dealer (ESF/Lighting) or a Heavy Armor Siege asset (MBT/Liberator)" and lightly pointing out the Flaws of each... Invalid. only bad designers cater to what people want over what works. that isn't overlap. you don't understand the role of a prowler no more then you understand the role of a MAX. again, only bad designers cater to what people want over what works. my strain of suggestion evolves the inverse of what the BFR did for PS1. Since you probably have trouble thinking back that far, i'll give you the abstract. the BFR was effectively a 1 player MBT. in Planetside 1 you needed a gunner to shoot the cannon on a tank. a major complaint for PS2 is the lack of team orientation this game has. This addresses the problem. Bad designer's again. proof positive you're not a designer. Rather then dropping a flawed idea and starting over... you're going to waste time, money, and effort Trying to get a bad idea to appear like it is working. That is the quick route to going over budget, getting fired, and knowing that what you where working on will never see the light of day. Probably because you're not a good designer, or communicator... either or. 'i don't think...' You're not paid to think. You are paid to Know. this Level design IS a bad idea, there are problems Here, Here, and here. This will result in This happening. if some one tells you 'don't care... do it' you're not a designer on that project... you're a developer. (something from photography... I didn't take the pictures... i developed them) And while that isn't something bad, because knowing what fights to fight in this industry is the best way to succeed in it. at least that's how i get past the very bad projects and hard headed clients.
I wouldn't mind like a huge flying base that travels on a preset path throughout the continent. That would be sweet.
Just reminded me to go play hawken thanks xd Mechs could be added but the balance would need to be sought that isn't destructive to the game, At the moment I don't think they should be added but further down the games life it's a possibility if other developments come to fruition. The upcoming air fortress is one which could need alternatives vehicles to counter so it entirely depends on what comes later in the game.
BFR's where only a problem on release, later if anyone got under you your a walking death trap with emp grenades and DECI's this seems more balanced then one manned tanks we currently have
except soloing a BFR required for you to also die... and for you to eject from some bird so you could have the mobility to get behind one most of the time.
BFR in planetside were supposed to be Heavy Battle Tanks, which to an extent they were. They were big slow lumbering machines with a lot of firepower. Then somewhere along the line, they decided a run mode that made them as fast, if not faster than prowlers, vanguards and magriders. Thus eliminating the whole "Big slow lumbering machine" aspect. Oh infantry trying to take me out? Run-Mode away. Tanks coming? Run-mode away! Had they been stuck with the extremely slow infantry or slower walking speed they should have had then they would have been a lot more balanced from the get-go.
