No AMS's, squad spawning? LET THE WILD SPECULATION BEGIN!

[SKYeXile]

I just saw they plan to have no AMS, well no I read it last night and spent hours pondering the possibilities and how homo i think it would be without them(and we're not talking FC homo, we're talking proper homo) and how retarded i think squad spawning is.

I know there is the option to spawn to galaxies, which i think is fine, because they're a large target and their useful maybe kinda limited to to the avaliblity of them/ but I believe they plan to allow people to spawn into vehicles too, to me its sounds alot like a battlefield rip-off right about now.

I think first ill try to think of the positives or rather reasons they would be going this way. Planetside whether you want to believe it or not does have a high learning curve to it and on your first few days finding a battle or trying to get what the hell is going can be abit overwhelming, i remember wandering around in a max through a warpgate to esimer for sometime before wandering back to sanc and getting in the hart and finding a fight before getting owned by a phoenix fire.

I presume SOE want to get people to the action fast, possibly join a large public squad or platoon and have some fun right away, and keep the action going by not relying on AMS's for mobile spawn points and give people a similar sort of environment and UI they're used to from playing battlefield.

One of the things I loved about planetside was its tactics, while there was no incentive to stay alive but a respawn timer and a run back it was enough for you to want to stay alive and with your squad. I foresee with the changes tactics while they wont go right out the window, there's not much of a death penalty if I can die then spawn right ontop of a squad member. the other problem is how are you going to fend off an assault if everybody can just spawn on each other or vehicles, in PS1, you're been assaulted or its a field fight, you push the enemy back to the AMS destroy it and your lines move forward, with people been able to spawn on each other you push them back a little perhaps, but then they have 1 squad member off to the side somewhere and there's 30 people spawning on him, this process could go on like this forever.

The AMS and to a degree ANT's acted as a supply line, by cutting off the supply of energy or re-enforcements it added more deep tactics to the game it was not just all about the pew pew pew, you actually had to think a little as an individual and an empire.

That's the other thing, while i presume this sort of system is been made to help the casual player, is it really helping them? Most of my time playing planetside I played solo, while i by no means am a casual player I would probably play like one, doing my own thing, rolling alittle with the zerg, setting up farms and whatnot. it sounds like thats not really going to be an option anymore, im going to have to roll with a squad to have a re spawn point? or be spawning from some random vehicle or something?...yea...

The point is most people who play FPS's play solo or with afew people and have no interest in forming or joining a outfit, it sounds with the way planetside 2 is been built you're going to have be in some mega huge platoon to get shit done. Hibigy himself said on twitter that BF3's new squad spawn system patch did not go well with causals and the game been built around squad spawning, dont be making the same mistake with PS2. Built it around AMS spawning. Capture the original Planetside feeling of all out war with deep tactics.

I hope im wrong and PS2 works, but its always best to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

[LZachariah]

I think it will be fine, even if it's a bit different from the PS1 that we remember and love. Until we actually experience something as unpleasant, trust the Devs; they know.

~Zachariah

[DirtyBird]

I'm going to miss the Mr Whippy Van.
Nothing like stumbling upon one hidden away during a major battle and dumping an orbital strike on it.

Or managing to sneak one in the enemy base and deploy it under ledge somewhere.


I agree with your comments on ANTs and AMS acting as part of the supply line.
They really fitted in well with PS1 and were an important part of any attack, or defence for that matter.

[FIREk]

Is this based on old or more recent info? If it's based on old info, I'm still kinda hoping that the Sunderer will be the new AMS, either by default or as a variant.

[Khellendros]

It is a good question, though, what happens for solo players in terms of respawning? It seems to me that the hardcore (or hardercore) peeps, who tend to be in outfits, will get all the benefit of the new system, but casuals and solos don't really seem to have much. From what we've heard so far.

[XPquant]

It's drop pods not squad spawning. You have to cert for it and it has a cool down.

The devs are not going to give us a game with a broken spawn mechanic, can we wait till beta for these freakouts please?

[SKYeXile]

Is this based on old or more recent info? If it's based on old info, I'm still kinda hoping that the Sunderer will be the new AMS, either by default or as a variant.

Yea it would be good to see it be a spawn point on the ground once deployed.

its based off this info:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/09/dancing-to-different-beats-planetside-2/
RPS: Is there much room for the pacifist side of the community; the ANT and the AMS were the core of that?

Higby: We’re going to have really well-defined support roles; so if you’re somebody who doesn’t consider themself a twitch gamer, you can play as a medic or engineer, and heal team members or set-up base defences. Your skill as a shooter isn’t your defining thing; the twitch shooting can require quite a high skill bar. AMSes aren’t going back in, but Galaxies are going to be mobile spawn points. One of the goals of PS2 is to really speed up the access to gameplay, we don’t want people waiting around.
RPS: Flashing back, I used to always play as an anti-air max, and jump-jet my way on top of base antennae, to get the jump on aircraft. Is the Vanu’s vertical mobility still going to be one of their key features?

Higby: We have more than one ability that each class can have. You can slot different types of abilities. Right now our jumpjet class is our light assault class. Their purpose is to get behind enemy lines to do really quick strikes. They’re our anti-sniper role; if there’s one sat on top of a tower somewhere, the light assault guys can run around really fast, jump-jet up and hit quick with assault rifles.


RPS: A bit like the WH40K set-up? Squads of people tracking behind enemy lines?

Higby: There’s a bunch of people who play the boardgame of WH40K. Like all the figures. One of the things we’re doing is putting squad-spawning in, so if you’re a light assault guy you can jumpjet over into a place, then squad-spawn on top of them. There’s a lot of cool strategic stuff you can do with mixed squads.

RPS: Can people hold off spawning until their team member is in the right exit location?

Higby: When you log into the game, you can select where you’re going to spawn; at a facility, at a galaxy, or on my squad. Squad-spawning is an ability you have to have; we have a cert-tree that’s completely redesigned from the original Planetside, so squad leadership is a cert-tree, and squad-spawning can be unlocked through that, and that has different levels too. So the first level, you can only spawn on the squad-leader, the second you can spawn on anybody in the squad; there’s timers that get reduced as you increase that ability too. So there’s a huge of amount depth built into that and people want to do leadership. You said your friend was a Command Rank 5 in Planetside 1? You can be a CR5 in PS1 by leading a lot of squads; in Planetside 2, you’re going to have to dedicate your skill progression to squad leadership.

[FIREk]

Yea it would be good to see it be a spawn point on the ground once deployed.

its based off this info:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/09/dancing-to-different-beats-planetside-2/

Well it's almost 3 months old, but leaves little hope. Of course "no AMS" doesn't necessarily mean "no ground-based respawning vehicle". The way Higby moves to describe the Galaxy's new role kind of suggests that it will be the only vehicle capable of respawning players, though...

[SKYeXile]

Well it's almost 3 months old, but leaves little hope. Of course "no AMS" doesn't necessarily mean "no ground-based respawning vehicle". The way Higby moves to describe the Galaxy's new role kind of suggests that it will be the only vehicle capable of respawning players, though...

sounds great, cant wait to get dropped out at sea and drowned....hrm...wonder if you can swim this time.

Still though the whole idea of squad spawning i really dont like, it is cool when you shooting at somebody and a dude popups behind him in bf3 and you get a bonus kill, but these games are about a repeating battle and mindless action and not about a persistent war. I think when you play planetside you want alittle downtime and not full on action all the time anyway.

granted everybody wont have this squad spawn thing at first, but unless it has some limitations like you spawn from a hart pop and it takes sometime and you can only do it every so often, then it going to be pretty powerful and every squad will have somebody with rank 2 of this ability.

[Khellendros]

Apparently, squad spawning is outdoors only (via drop pod?) and with a long timer, so it wouldn't be the primary for of respawning. But then my question is, what is the primary respawn away from a base or when you are attacking one?

[SKYeXile]

Apparently, squad spawning is outdoors only (via drop pod?) and with a long timer, so it wouldn't be the primary for of respawning. But then my question is, what is the primary respawn away from a base or when you are attacking one?

it would seem like a galaxy(its raining men!) but then i don't get why they would not have a ground spawn point.

[FIREk]

The way I understand it, squad spawning will be a luxury.

You should consider something else, though. BF3 only leaves like 5-8 seconds for a medic to revive a fallen teammate. It is bound to be longer in PS2, so revives might end up prolonging battles as much as squad respawns do in BF3. Is that necessarily a bad thing, though? If I have to wait 10 minutes for a hack to go through, I prefer to do it while busting VS/NC heads, not AFKing or waiting for nothing to happen. :)

[Khellendros]

What I don't get about the decision to ditch AMS and possibly make galaxy the primary is why are they seemingly trying to make the business of providing a respawn more difficult than in PS1?

AMSes could cloak and even so it was a challenge to keep one up for very long, I can't imagine galaxies, which can't cloak and are much bigger than AMSes, to have much of a lifetime on the battlefield...

[FIREk]

What I don't get about the decision to ditch AMS and possibly make galaxy the primary is why are they seemingly trying to make the business of providing a respawn more difficult than in PS1?

AMSes could cloak and even so it was a challenge to keep one up for very long, I can't imagine galaxies, which can't cloak and are much bigger than AMSes, to have much of a lifetime on the battlefield...

Plus, you could simply park an AMS and let it do its job. In a game which wants tank drivers to be rewarded with being able to shoot, it seems inconsistent that Galaxy pilots are expected to fly in circles or hover, and Sunderer drivers are only expected to drive to a destination and leave their vehicle to get blown up... Or play public transport and go back to a facility for more fodder.

Maybe they want to emphasize the role of Medics? They could do this by making any respawn method other than at a tower/bunker/base/etc a luxury, including using a Galaxy...

I trust that they know what they're doing, and that they have made limited playtests and the stuff they implemented works pretty well together... But having to parachute after each respawn seems... Boring and pointless? I know I didn't enjoy parachute respawns in Bad Company 2 (in Port Valdez and some other winter map).

And maybe the Galaxy can land and deploy a cloak? Doubtful, but who knows?

[sylphaen]

Or they could make medics an OP healbot class so I could finally feel like there is the DPS class, the buff class and that I play a priest in a class based MMO game.
:doh:

If the squad fails, blame the medics !

[dsi]

Plus, you could simply park an AMS and let it do its job. In a game which wants tank drivers to be rewarded with being able to shoot, it seems inconsistent that Galaxy pilots are expected to fly in circles or hover, and Sunderer drivers are only expected to drive to a destination and leave their vehicle to get blown up... Or play public transport and go back to a facility for more fodder.

Maybe they want to emphasize the role of Medics? They could do this by making any respawn method other than at a tower/bunker/base/etc a luxury, including using a Galaxy...

I trust that they know what they're doing, and that they have made limited playtests and the stuff they implemented works pretty well together... But having to parachute after each respawn seems... Boring and pointless? I know I didn't enjoy parachute respawns in Bad Company 2 (in Port Valdez and some other winter map).

And maybe the Galaxy can land and deploy a cloak? Doubtful, but who knows?

Hopefully they decide to start making sense and reward teamwork instead of lonewolfing in tanks.

[FIREk]

Hopefully they decide to start making sense and reward teamwork instead of lonewolfing in tanks.

I don't think it's going to be a problem based on how pathetically ineffective tanks are in BF3 compared to PS1's MBTs, but let's not derail this thread. :)

[Khellendros]

This thread makes me wish even more that we could've seen that demo...

[Lonehunter]

There is still the possibility of another ground vehicle spawning people that isn't an "AMS". I like the idea of spawning right into a gunner or passenger seat. Maybe if that vech is in the SOI or near squad mates. They could also make the Sunderer the land Galaxy. It still has gunners but it's role is to stay just outside the action so people can spawn.

We could also have deployable spawn points, like for Engi's or Commanders

[FIREk]

We could also have deployable spawn points, like for Engi's or Commanders

BF3 has some sort of deployable spawn points, right?

[daish k]

Aren't there supposed to be a lot more spawn points though, one for each of the locations you can capture? Maybe we are underestimating the number of static spawn points? I will miss the strategic play of the ams if we are meant to primarily spawn from static locations.

I just cannot see galaxies being a primary spawn point unless they are very tough, or AA is very weak. But, it could be fun to be a galaxy pilot filling up and dropping troops somewhere every 20 seconds or so.

[Traak]

What I don't get about the decision to ditch AMS and possibly make galaxy the primary is why are they seemingly trying to make the business of providing a respawn more difficult than in PS1?

AMSes could cloak and even so it was a challenge to keep one up for very long, I can't imagine galaxies, which can't cloak and are much bigger than AMSes, to have much of a lifetime on the battlefield...

With the new game, I hope they have none of the following:
Reveal
OS
Audio Amp
Enemies (without vehicles) visible on radar

So in order to find enemies, as alien and weird as this may sound, you will actually have to see them. Yeah, I know CRAZY to some, actually having to engage an enemy you have seen, but some games have it and it seems to work well enough.

Some shooter games actually make it so you have to see your enemies, and you have to see them to shoot them, or you won't know where they are! Pretty revolutionary stuff, I know, but I'm sure Planetside 2 could handle such awesomely cutting-edge tactical amazingness without having the whole userbase quit.

With that phenomenal new concept in place, spawn points would last much longer.

[Canaris]

I'm going to have to reserve judgement on AMS's till I see how the spawn mechanics work in game, they may have some novel new ideas for spawning that just makes AMSs redundant

[Vash02]

I hate the idea of squad spawning, it diminishes the value of proper spawns.

[Traak]

Advanced Mobile Maxes LOL, with an EQ term, ammo term and four-variety fountain soft drink dispenser!

[basti]

This threat makes me wish that i could just keel ya all!

Srsly, the "No ams" Info is olllddd, really oolllddd. And its a nonissue, it absoluty doesnt matter, there is no point creating a threat for it, or doing anything about it at all. Because there is almost no difference to PS1 in that matter.

AMS = GAL. Means, the way it propably turns out is that you fly your Gal over, Land, deploy, BANG SPAWNS! We wont be able to fly while being a spawn point, as that would be completly broken and abused.


And Squad spawning is just the new Hart, nothing else. Allows you to get to the rest of your squad quickly. And it will be rarley used, because if you use it, you end up as a foot soilder, just somewhere in the wild. Your squad is flying/driving, your on foot...

[Traak]

I want a no-radar zone that extends 50m on every side of the cloak bubble

[Vash02]

And Squad spawning is just the new Hart, nothing else. Allows you to get to the rest of your squad quickly. And it will be rarley used, because if you use it, you end up as a foot soilder, just somewhere in the wild. Your squad is flying/driving, your on foot...
erm no, it isnt the new HART. with the HART there were disadvantages to using it, such as a timer and having to travel back to the sanctuary each time to use it. with squad spawn you can simply spawn on the one guy who got through and all of a sudden you have a mass of people constantly spawning behind you... urgh.
If an AMS got through and planted itself I'd say fair do's and be quite impressed but not with a single guy.

[FIREk]

erm no, it isnt the new HART. with the HART there were disadvantages to using it, such as a timer and having to travel back to the sanctuary each time to use it. with squad spawn you can simply spawn on the one guy who got through and all of a sudden you have a mass of people constantly spawning behind you... urgh.
If an AMS got through and planted itself I'd say fair do's and be quite impressed but not with a single guy.

That's nonsense and you know it. ;) Pretty much every time Higby (or anyone else) mentions squad spawning, he stresses that it's not the primary spawning method. There will be disadvantages like timers, maybe a resource cost, let alone having to cert a skill (something the common Zergling may not be able to grasp;)). Whatever that is, it's supposed to make squad spawning a luxury. That's one thing.

Second, it only works outdoors, where you might as well have dropped from a HART (if it were PS1), or moved there unseen behind some hills and stuff. It's the freaking outdoors, so where is the problem here?

Lastly, when squad spawning, you drop down from the sky in a drop pod. That alone takes time and makes you a bloody obvious target. You're making an issue about "masses of people constantly spawning" or whatever. If you keep missing that "mass" of drop pods falling from the sky and haven't taken a tank and some buddies to clear the place out, it's your own damn fault for letting people spawn there. :p

Yay for allowing people to spawn from things other than a base or truck. Nay for no confirmation of said truck, or its equivalent, in PS2.

[Coreldan]

Perhaps people are too strongly thinking about BF3s squad spawning, where people just appear out of thin air in the middle of a combat at any place, any time :D

[SKYeXile]

Perhaps people are too strongly thinking about BF3s squad spawning, where people just appear out of thin air in the middle of a combat at any place, any time :D

and how gay it is? perhaps.

[FIREk]

Perhaps people are too strongly thinking about BF3s squad spawning, where people just appear out of thin air in the middle of a combat at any place, any time :D

It's a mixture of this and fear of change, I suppose... But mostly how gay BF3's spawning looks and feels. :P

That being said, without any form of squad spawning, Battlefield would be really boring. In BF1942 you usually fought against 1 player at a time, sometimes up to three at best. The rest were either elsewhere, or busy running/driving from the nearest objective they could spawn at.

Something similar happened in PS1. Think of how much time you and the Zerg wasted running from a tower to a base on, say, Extinction, where it was really tough to get an AMS through (bases on high ground, choke points everywhere) and towers always placed behind a choke point.
A Galaxy, and wise usage of squad spawning (assuming it's got considerable weaknesses to take into account) could allow you to make a considerable push and establish some sort of foothold... Hopefully with a PS2 AMS equivalent. ;)

[Vash02]

That's nonsense and you know it. ;) Pretty much every time Higby (or anyone else) mentions squad spawning, he stresses that it's not the primary spawning method. There will be disadvantages like timers, maybe a resource cost, let alone having to cert a skill (something the common Zergling may not be able to grasp;)). Whatever that is, it's supposed to make squad spawning a luxury. That's one thing.

Second, it only works outdoors, where you might as well have dropped from a HART (if it were PS1), or moved there unseen behind some hills and stuff. It's the freaking outdoors, so where is the problem here?

Lastly, when squad spawning, you drop down from the sky in a drop pod. That alone takes time and makes you a bloody obvious target. You're making an issue about "masses of people constantly spawning" or whatever. If you keep missing that "mass" of drop pods falling from the sky and haven't taken a tank and some buddies to clear the place out, it's your own damn fault for letting people spawn there. :p

Yay for allowing people to spawn from things other than a base or truck. Nay for no confirmation of said truck, or its equivalent, in PS2.
Fair cop, didnt read the FAQ before posting.

Sounds like it more of a faff to use than useful now. May aswell have kept the HART in.

[FIREk]

Fair cop, didnt read the FAQ before posting.

Sounds like it more of a faff to use than useful now. May aswell have kept the HART in.

Come to think of it... They should have. :) Maybe we'll be able to use drop pods to spawn anywhere in friendly territory, independent of the squad spawn system?

Since the devs want to rip as much downtime out of the game, the PS2 HART probably wouldn't have really long timers. And being able to quickly spawn behind enemy lines, without even needing a squadmate/leader there, would be pretty cheap. :)

[ringring]

So, if you and your squad decide to open another cont or base. Presently you go there and before you put the hack on you make sure you have 1,2 or three spawn points, ie AMSES, and then you try to defend the spawn points because if you lose those then, you've lost or anyway will immenently lose.
In the new brave world of no AMSES, squad spawning won't work, a flying galaxy is a big obvious target.
So, without the AMS mechanic has opening a new battle front become very difficult to nigh on impossible, or only possible by a full-blown raid?

<- wondering

[Vash02]

Come to think of it... They should have. :) Maybe we'll be able to use drop pods to spawn anywhere in friendly territory, independent of the squad spawn system?

Since the devs want to rip as much downtime out of the game, the PS2 HART probably wouldn't have really long timers. And being able to quickly spawn behind enemy lines, without even needing a squadmate/leader there, would be pretty cheap. :)Well maybe they could have just have a catapult instead of the shuttle where they throw/fire your drop pod off when you request one.

[FIREk]

So, without the AMS mechanic has opening a new battle front become very difficult to nigh on impossible, or only possible by a full-blown raid?

Well, there are the footholds which guarantee a spawn point, most likely for vehicles and aircraft too... But yeah, more covert operations do seem really difficult now that you mention it...

Well maybe they could have just have a catapult instead of the shuttle where they throw/fire your drop pod off when you request one.

Or a cannon. :P

[CutterJohn]

So in order to find enemies, as alien and weird as this may sound, you will actually have to see them. Yeah, I know CRAZY to some, actually having to engage an enemy you have seen, but some games have it and it seems to work well enough.

I liked the system Crysis used, where the minimap would ping where shots were fired. If you didn't want to appear on the mini map you didn't shoot, or used a silencer, which of course was detrimental to damage/range.


As for AMS, I've a good feeling that the Sundy will be the new AMS. Combine the roles of the vehicles.

[Coreldan]

They also said that the Sunderer will be much better armored this time around, I see this sort of conflicting to it being the AMS. It might end up too powerful when it has a fair speed, good durability and can spawn players inside it? Or would for example deploying it as an AMS make it more vulnerable for example, but on the move it would be fairly durable?

[FIREk]

They also said that the Sunderer will be much better armored this time around, I see this sort of conflicting to it being the AMS. It might end up too powerful when it has a fair speed, good durability and can spawn players inside it? Or would for example deploying it as an AMS make it more vulnerable for example, but on the move it would be fairly durable?

I'm getting a feeling that vehicles will be getting regenerative shields as standard this time. We had shields in PS1, plus infantry get personal shields in PS2, so I don't find this unlikely. I'm assuming that, for MBTs, shields could be weak compared to armor, but it could be more like 50/50 for the Sunderer. It doesn't look _that_ armored on the render, to be honest (with the exposed diff and all), which might support my theory.

So, the Sunderer could be pretty tough when on the move - much like BF3's AMTRAC - courtesy of its powerful shield, but the power requirements of a cloak bubble (or, you know, whatever technobabble you prefer;)) would mean it wouldn't be shielded once deployed as an AMS. So, once it's discovered, it would go down as fast as a PS1 AMS would.

It should still be able to spawn players inside it while on the move, assuming it's still got empty spaces inside. This way players could join the ride while it's already on the move to its objective.

[FIREk]

Also, WASP... I hated you guys so much... :P

[Coreldan]

Also, WASP... I hated you guys so much... :P

The amount of hate we recieve for no apparent reason is crazy. I guess people just don't like being whooped by organized teams when not organized themselves :D

I suppose your talking about APB? Which server?

Were bringing the same stuff to PS2 though: A laid back and casual gaming community for people who want to work as a team first and foremost. Teamwork gets you so so far :D Like in APB, I'm barely above average player myself, but working as a team (and objective oriented) first and foremost wins me most of my missions.

[FIREk]

The amount of hate we recieve for no apparent reason is crazy. I guess people just don't like being whooped by organized teams when not organized themselves :D

I suppose your talking about APB? Which server?

Were bringing the same stuff to PS2 though: A laid back and casual gaming community for people who want to work as a team first and foremost. Teamwork gets you so so far :D Like in APB, I'm barely above average player myself, but working as a team (and objective oriented) first and foremost wins me most of my missions.

Patriot on both APB and APB:R. I'll follow up in a PM. ;)

[xSlideShow]

So, if you and your squad decide to open another cont or base. Presently you go there and before you put the hack on you make sure you have 1,2 or three spawn points, ie AMSES, and then you try to defend the spawn points because if you lose those then, you've lost or anyway will immenently lose.
In the new brave world of no AMSES, squad spawning won't work, a flying galaxy is a big obvious target.
So, without the AMS mechanic has opening a new battle front become very difficult to nigh on impossible, or only possible by a full-blown raid?

<- wondering
Get a sniper in your covert team problem solved imo. You'll just need your squad leader to be spec'd far enough down into their command tree to get spawning on top of any squad member. Otherwise your squad leader will have to be a light assault so he can run out of the base easily enough for people to spawn.

[basti]

I'm getting a feeling that vehicles will be getting regenerative shields as standard this time. We had shields in PS1, plus infantry get personal shields in PS2, so I don't find this unlikely. I'm assuming that, for MBTs, shields could be weak compared to armor, but it could be more like 50/50 for the Sunderer. It doesn't look _that_ armored on the render, to be honest (with the exposed diff and all), which might support my theory.

So, the Sunderer could be pretty tough when on the move - much like BF3's AMTRAC - courtesy of its powerful shield, but the power requirements of a cloak bubble (or, you know, whatever technobabble you prefer;)) would mean it wouldn't be shielded once deployed as an AMS. So, once it's discovered, it would go down as fast as a PS1 AMS would.

It should still be able to spawn players inside it while on the move, assuming it's still got empty spaces inside. This way players could join the ride while it's already on the move to its objective.


There never, in the entire History of Planetside and Planetside 2, was any talk about self regen shields on vehicles. And you just bring it up.
In other words: Dont trust your feelings. :D


Planetside 2 is a new game. It will be somewhat similar to planetside, but its not the same. They didnt take the old game and started changing from that point forward, no, they build a new game. That means that a Jackhammer in PS2 may still look similar to a Jackhammer in PS1, and the PS2 one is most likley also a HA shotgun, but it wont be the same. It will feel different, just like everything else in PS2. So forget about PS1.

With that said, about the Sundy ams stuff: You forget that one big topic: Customization. To give you an example:

Sunderer base armor: 5000
base speed: 100 kmh max
now, theres a module you can put onto your sunderer. Its a spawning module, allowing the sundy to be used as a spawn point. For that, it has to be deployed. On top of that, it does a -3000 on armor and a - 20 on speed. Bang, you have your ground AMS, just as before.

No reason why it could be that way.

But, also no reason to have it that way.
You have the galaxy replacing the ams. What else do you need?

[Graywolves]

I want to have a massive command van that spawns people.

If it can't spawn people, then atleast have equipment terminals so squad leaders can sit there and have their squads drop on them and use the terminals.

[xSlideShow]

I want to have a massive command van that spawns people.

If it can't spawn people, then atleast have equipment terminals so squad leaders can sit there and have their squads drop on them and use the terminals.

Why? You can just spawn with your gear on now.

[FIREk]

words

Before I invest time into writing a reply, I need to clarify something. You appear to be commenting other users' views under the assumption that you're in a position of authority. Am I correct here, or do you just write posts in a smug way based off your personality (that I don't know, obviously), or because English is not your native launguage and you don't know how your words can be interpreted?

[Coreldan]

I am no mod here, but could we please return the discussion to civil levels again. No need for e-thuggyness from anyone here.

Let's all be friends!

[basti]

Before I invest time into writing a reply, I need to clarify something. You appear to be commenting other users' views under the assumption that you're in a position of authority. Am I correct here, or do you just write posts in a smug way based off your personality (that I don't know, obviously), or because English is not your native launguage and you don't know how your words can be interpreted?

Its a mix of having read everything that has been released to us about PS2, not being a native speaker and me being a big ass. ;)

If you mean the "There never, in the entire History..." part, that was a joke. IF you mean the rest: im serious there. We all still think of Planetside 2 as Planetside-New, but it is in fact a new game.

Cor: we are still civil. No blood yet. ;)

[raykor]

AMS’s are one of the defining features of Planetside and no sane person should even be considering removing them. All of the tactics involved in deploying, defending, and attacking them were a great part of Planetside’s charm.

Spawning to a Galaxy is fine.

Spawning on a squad member or into a vehicle is a horrible idea. This whole trend for instant action sickens me. The small breaks you get between encounters (respawning at the nearest base, grabbing a loadout, spawning a vehicle, and traveling back to the front line) is what makes it possible to play this game for hours at one sitting. It also gives a short respite to the winner of the encounter and some small sense of value to actually winning an encounter. Non-stop, die-respawn-die-respawn-die-respawn action is nauseating.

I never understood the complaint that Planetside has a steep learning curve. Compare it to a RPG with dozens of classes, hundreds of skills, talents, stats, combat formulas, etc. I’m not saying the game didn’t have certain things you needed to learn but boiling water requires some knowledge as well. Add a decent tutorial and stop dumbing games down.

What Planetside required (and rewarded) was experience: knowing which weapons worked best in each situation and a tactical awareness of the flow of battles and common enemy tactics.

But whatever, game developers will do what they want as usual.

[Alaska]

I don't think it'll be as bad as you say. As a squad leader you'll have spec out the ability to have squad members spawn on you and then you'll have to go even deeper into the spec tree to have members spawn on other members. Don't forget that there will be timers involved, hopefully getting longer and longer the more you respawn on a squad mate. I believe they'll have plenty of limitations where they're needed. =]

(correct me anyone if that's wrong) :P

[Graywolves]

Why? You can just spawn with your gear on now.

Well they can't spawn on top of their squad leaders inside the base so if the van is outside doors and stuff there's the spawn and the place to grab ammo if they go out and survive enough.


As a squad/platoon/outfit officer I'd want my troops to know the rallying point, where ammo and repairs are and to have an effective staging point to attack from.

[FIREk]

We all still think of Planetside 2 as Planetside-New, but it is in fact a new game.

Oh, I know. I'm just speculating based off... Well... Everything. ;) For the past months I've lived and breathed PlanetSide 2 so much, my workmates think I'm insane. :P
I mentioned PS1 shields as an argument that, mechanics and balance aside, vehicle shields are not beyond PS2's "lore".

At first, when we got the first and only Sunderer render, I suggested that it could possibly be customized to fill the role of AMS. I thought about this afterwards and figured it's unlikely, because:
1) respawn vehicles should be part of the game's core mechanic, and core mechanic elements should be pronounced in-game, not hidden under customization menus,
2) from what we know about customizations, they (should) all cost resources; something as basic (and part of the core mechanic) as a respawn vehicle shouldn't cost anything.
It is possible, though, that the Sunderer may have that weaker-armored AMS variant available, as far as game mechanics go, as a completely separate vehicle.
I just concocted a theory about vehicle shields becuase it seemed more convenient, and not at all unlikely.

Back to the point, I believe the game needs a mobile, deployable spawn point and the PS1 AMS was designed to fit this role perfectly.
The PS2 Galaxy may, of course, be designed to land and deploy as the AMS's equivalent, cloak and all, but we have nothing to base this os, unfortunately. Also, I'm pretty sure I was the first person to suggest deployable Gals on PSU forums. ;)
On a related note, I find it unlikely that we'll have that kind of functionality in PS2, if only because gals are relatively HUGE, with wings and all. :)

Right now I believe that the Gal will not be able to land and cloak, so we can assume that it will be the equivalent of BFBC2's Blackhawk choppers. If so, its role will be to fly about and drop off troops as it flies about. This would be weak/bad for a number of reasons:
1) having to "parachute" after every respawn will become dull, if not frustrating, after a while - much like parachute spawn points in BFBC2 - because there isn't much to do while slowly falling from the sky,
2) airborne Gals sound pretty vulnerable for spawn points,
3) a mobile, airborne Gal is a very unreliable spawn point, as it can fly to a different location before I can actually respawn in it and drop where I wanted to drop,
4) Gals circling bases will look retarded,
5) Gals circling bases and raining down wave after wave of players will look even more retarded. ;)

Of course this is all assuming that this is how Gal spawning will work (raining down players), but it's why many of us believe that we need something with the AMS's functionality - a cloakable Gal, Sundy, a deployable spawn beacon for the Engineer, whatever.

[Blackwolf]

I think the AMS is needed, the Galaxy should NOT be a spawn point, and the player spawning system (requireing command certs, and being limited to outdoors only) is fine as it sounds.

The AMS was a vital target to take out/protect in any assault. Destroying one changed the face of the battle immediately, and people knew it when they lost it. The Galaxy being a spawn point? Something in the air, vulnerable, always moving... No losing these won't have the same impact. They were faster then AMSes and could travel over any terrain, getting them to any base was easy so if one dies, hell there's probably 5 more sitting around. And if not? No problem one can be there inside of 2 minutes. This isn't how it was in PS but then again, Galaxies in PS1 weren't spawn points, they were troop transports. If there was little or no need for one, they rarely made an appearance.

A lot of what the DEVs are doing is killing the tactics of a large scale battle. They are employing game systems designed for 64v64 battles, not the large scale 3 way battles that PS is known for.

I also agree that the downtime is needed. Players using the HART were funneled into waves, when the hart timer was reduced the waves shrank and people also stopped forming large raids and moving en masse against targets. Reducing the downtime reduces the over all fun of the game in my opinion.

[xSlideShow]

Well they can't spawn on top of their squad leaders inside the base so if the van is outside doors and stuff there's the spawn and the place to grab ammo if they go out and survive enough.


As a squad/platoon/outfit officer I'd want my troops to know the rallying point, where ammo and repairs are and to have an effective staging point to attack from.

Well now the advantage of being a squad/platoon/outfit officer is that you are that rallying point. People won't have much trouble finding you when they can spawn on top of you.

My view of it is at the beginning the majority of squad leaders are probably going to be light assault (Jet Troops) or cloakers. This way you can get around quickly thus getting your squad around. This is my plan anyway, I figure if as a jet trooper I can just zip out of the building real quick and let squad members spawn in. The only danger is getting out of the building. I also intend on having a sniper in my squad at all times. So this will be good in that I'll pretty much have an AMS once I get the certs.

Basically what I'm saying is, between this and the galaxy I don't see why I would need an AMS. Is peoples problem that they are removing the AMS or adding in squad spawning because, I don't think you can have both. Personally I prefer squad spawning since it's passive, and will allow me to still pull other vehicles without having to get back to my AMS every 15 minutes. This wasn't to bad but it was quite the hassle.

Also you don't have to worry about greenies ruining your ops anymore. Since they can't spawn on top you, only your squad members can. I hate how greenies always manage to give the AMS away.

[Blackwolf]

I don't see how a sniper in your squad would help any?

[SKYeXile]

I don't see how a sniper in your squad would help any?

snipers are cloaked, if PS2's system is like BF3 where you instant spawn ontop of them, you spawn on somebody who is stealthed and far enough away, but still close to the action. i mentioned this is my first post, all you need is 1 person off to the side of the battle and you could in theory dump like 30 people ontop of him and battles would go on all day.

[xSlideShow]

I think the AMS is needed, the Galaxy should NOT be a spawn point, and the player spawning system (requireing command certs, and being limited to outdoors only) is fine as it sounds.

The AMS was a vital target to take out/protect in any assault. Destroying one changed the face of the battle immediately, and people knew it when they lost it. The Galaxy being a spawn point? Something in the air, vulnerable, always moving... No losing these won't have the same impact. They were faster then AMSes and could travel over any terrain, getting them to any base was easy so if one dies, hell there's probably 5 more sitting around. And if not? No problem one can be there inside of 2 minutes. This isn't how it was in PS but then again, Galaxies in PS1 weren't spawn points, they were troop transports. If there was little or no need for one, they rarely made an appearance.

A lot of what the DEVs are doing is killing the tactics of a large scale battle. They are employing game systems designed for 64v64 battles, not the large scale 3 way battles that PS is known for.

I also agree that the downtime is needed. Players using the HART were funneled into waves, when the hart timer was reduced the waves shrank and people also stopped forming large raids and moving en masse against targets. Reducing the downtime reduces the over all fun of the game in my opinion.

What's the problem with the galaxy being a spawn point? I only see benefit, it allows for you to form your raid up on the move. It's a very large target meaning it's going to need protection. It really gives the galaxy a bigger job which is great because it use to just be a bullet shield until you got into the action.

The only downside I can see in making the Galaxy a spawn point is that your not going to have that OMG OMG OMG GALAXY GET TO THA ROOF! Feeling. I however do believe they will promote the same sense of urgency in that enemy troops are going to be raining down on you every pass. It's kinda great for those bomber pilots if you think about it.

I also think it will promote team play passively of course since your going to need protection and enemies are going to flock to you. So your gonna get some pretty sweet air battles all just because of this galaxy flying around.

This is of course assuming that the Gal is mobile the entire time it's spawning troops.

snipers are cloaked, if PS2's system is like BF3 where you instant spawn ontop of them, you spawn on somebody who is stealthed and far enough away, but still close to the action. i mentioned this is my first post, all you need is 1 person off to the side of the battle and you could in theory dump like 30 people ontop of him and battles would go on all day.

This is true, but if it's just squad wide spawning with a 2-3 minute timer I think we'll be ok. I don't see how it will be to much different from the current AMS system just more mobile.

[xSlideShow]

Delete

[sylphaen]

Just as a reminder, the OP actually called for WILD SPECULATION.

Please, do not get too offended when people start to discuss wildly about wild ideas.
:D

[Xyntech]

We don't know how PS2's vehicle spawning will work yet.

Will we be able to spawn in every passenger vehicle, or just the Galaxy? Maybe just the Galaxy and Sunderer.

Will the vehicles have to land/stop and deploy to allow spawning, or will they be able to do it on the move? Maybe the Galaxy can do it while mobile while the Sunderer has to deploy.

We really just don't know. The removal of the AMS may just end up being a victim of the fact that vehicles are getting more customization options. In the end, we may get a heavily modified Sunderer with lowered health, no guns and a cloak bubble, that is essentially the same as an AMS only with a new look. That is speculation of course, but it is entirely possible.

As for squad spawning, everything the devs have said about it clearly points towards it functioning like a much faster paced version of HART dropping. It's faster pace is also balanced by the fact that you need a properly certed squad leader to make use of it and that you are more limited than HART as to where exactly you can drop. Combine that with a longish cooldown timer and there is no reason why squad spawning will be any less balanced than HART dropping.

[Graywolves]

Having a rallying point of only your squad away from equipment terminals, etc. Is useful but very situational. I also wouldn't want squad leader to ALWAYS mean that you need to sit back and bark.

I feel that a ground spawning vehicle is necessary. Otherwise we have scattered skirmishes and a chaotic battlefield with everyone everywhere and no goals being accomplished or bases taken.

[Alaska]

Awesome Mobile Submarine :D

*edit*
http://disneylandreport.com/disneyphotos/070430-finding-nemo-dream-mobile-submarine-voyage-disneyland.jpg
NC made? :o LOL (I wasn't expecting this when I looked through google)

[xSlideShow]

Having a rallying point of only your squad away from equipment terminals, etc. Is useful but very situational. I also wouldn't want squad leader to ALWAYS mean that you need to sit back and bark.

I feel that a ground spawning vehicle is necessary. Otherwise we have scattered skirmishes and a chaotic battlefield with everyone everywhere and no goals being accomplished or bases taken.

We have the mission system to provide order. I think almost that entire issue will be solved with that. It will depend on how it is implemented we have not seen anything really on the mission system. We just know that it is player controlled... That's a pretty wide term. I feel most the organization is going to come from that and outfits. If done properly the mission system alone will greatly condense the battlefield. You are also gonna have comms built in. I would like to see the ability to start your own voice chat channels and make it relatively easy to swap channels so you can receive information.

I think having to sit back and bark is something you may have to do as a low level squad leader. Later on, you have the ability to spawn on anyone. So making sure you're alive isn't a big deal, but there is also going to be medics so I don't think you should have to be too careful. With the increased team play that squad spawning is going to cause in the zerg. I can only see the need to spawn less and less. In fact my thought was using it more for transportation than anything. However, it will useful during ops too.

[Traak]

A Galaxy that flies into almost anywhere, drops down and cloaks would be a cool spawn option. Especially if the undeploy and takeoff delay was about one second.

Being able to carry enough troops and MAX's to defend itself in situ would be a real change for pilots, because instead of raping defenseless ANT's, cloakers, AMS's, Lodestars, and anything else they could, in order to attack a spawn point, they might actually face armed opposition. I don't know that most pilots can handle attacking anything that shoots back. It certainly isn't their preference, based on PS1, and it would make the spawn location more secure right off the bat.

Generally, spawn points are completely and absolutely ignored and undefended. In eight years, I remember maybe three times when one HA stuck around to guard the AMS. Having a spawn point be armed, heavily armored, and flight-mobile would be a great addition to the game, but would confuse and frustrate most Reaver pilots, because who could they attack that was defenseless then?

I think having Galaxies armed with three AA cannons would be a great way to encourage pilots to ACTUALLY ATTACK SOMETHING ELSE for a change, instead of mutually agreeing to avoid each other in air-to-air combat so both sides can focus on raping defenseless vehicles and cloakers.

Having Galaxies that are very heavily armed and armored might make rushing in glee to the defenseless spawn point and all the newly-spawned soldiers in jammies, so you can score easy kills less tempting. Maybe pilots and ground vehicles might start hunting planes and other ground vehicles. I know. Crazy idea, to some, but one worth mentioning.

Another thing to assist pilots in finding something to do other than air-raping unaware and newly-spawned soldiers and defenseless vechicles is to have a very high flight ceiling, measured in kilometers, and a very tough Capital-like dome over the Galaxy when deployed that is impossible to penetrate with weapons. If you want in, you actually have to walk in, just like a shield-mod protected base.

Imagine, a Planetside where planes actually attack something other than the weak and the vulnerable. I don't know if pilots will actually want to play the game when they face only armed opposition, and are barred from freely raping things and people that are actually or functionally defenseless.

[Blackwolf]

snipers are cloaked, if PS2's system is like BF3 where you instant spawn ontop of them, you spawn on somebody who is stealthed and far enough away, but still close to the action. i mentioned this is my first post, all you need is 1 person off to the side of the battle and you could in theory dump like 30 people ontop of him and battles would go on all day.

I was hoping that was a joke of some sort. I hope I can still snipe in heavy armor.

What's the problem with the galaxy being a spawn point? I only see benefit, it allows for you to form your raid up on the move. It's a very large target meaning it's going to need protection. It really gives the galaxy a bigger job which is great because it use to just be a bullet shield until you got into the action.

The only downside I can see in making the Galaxy a spawn point is that your not going to have that OMG OMG OMG GALAXY GET TO THA ROOF! Feeling. I however do believe they will promote the same sense of urgency in that enemy troops are going to be raining down on you every pass. It's kinda great for those bomber pilots if you think about it.

I also think it will promote team play passively of course since your going to need protection and enemies are going to flock to you. So your gonna get some pretty sweet air battles all just because of this galaxy flying around.

This is of course assuming that the Gal is mobile the entire time it's spawning troops.


Gal acting as an AMS means it will flood the battlefield, and once the CY is dominated then what chance do the defenders have of pushing back? Their target is 400m above ground raining troops on their heads rather then somewhere on the ground forcing troops to either fight their way across or up wards. Essentially a Galaxy spawn point gives the attacking party the permanent high ground. Get an AA MAX to take it out? Fine, but all the MAX suits equipped for AA are useless for pushing the enemy troops out, and vulnerable to enemy troops respawning.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

AMS placement was such a central part of PlanetSide it'll be hard to imagine playing without it. Granted I quit that game before it became the rancid garbage it is now so I wasn't around for the non-stop OS barraging.

[xSlideShow]

Gal acting as an AMS means it will flood the battlefield, and once the CY is dominated then what chance do the defenders have of pushing back? Their target is 400m above ground raining troops on their heads rather then somewhere on the ground forcing troops to either fight their way across or up wards. Essentially a Galaxy spawn point gives the attacking party the permanent high ground. Get an AA MAX to take it out? Fine, but all the MAX suits equipped for AA are useless for pushing the enemy troops out, and vulnerable to enemy troops respawning.

Well won't that increase team play? I'm pretty sure, It will force them to work together to push out.

Edit- I think it would be really cool if we could see one of the cert trees.

[FIREk]

Gal acting as an AMS means it will flood the battlefield, and once the CY is dominated then what chance do the defenders have of pushing back?

Whoah... While I don't think what you described is a problem, but I thought of a different one. The number of Galaxies that can fly above the base.

Shooting down a Gal shouldn't be that tough for the defenders - they have base turrets and AA weapons. With AMSs, you could only have like 3 or so in a courtyard, and it was impractical to keep more parked outside of the base. So if you took out some of those 3 AMSs, it would take a while for them to get replaced.

I can't think of any reasonable mechanic that would practically limit the number of Galaxies that can fly around and above the base and drop troops. Even if only 5 at a time could actually act as spawn points, this doesn't stop the rest from instantly becoming new spawn points after some of their friends get blown up.

[Crator]

I will sorely miss the AMS and do agree that they need to have some sort of ground spawning mechanic other then squad spawning. Not to say they haven't done this, it just might not be a mobile ground spawning mechanic.

One request that I've always wanted in PS1; If there will be a ground spawning mechanic that requires a deployable and said deployable has a SOI which prevents you from deploying another spawn point near it. Please give us an indicator on the screen/radar/map that tells us the SOI of the deployable. It was always a bitch to try and figure out where the other AMS is that's preventing you from deploying.

[ringring]

I will sorely miss the AMS and do agree that they need to have some sort of ground spawning mechanic other then squad spawning. Not to say they haven't done this, it just might not be a mobile ground spawning mechanic.

One request that I've always wanted in PS1; If there will be a ground spawning mechanic that requires a deployable and said deployable has a SOI which prevents you from deploying another spawn point near it. Please give us an indicator on the screen/radar/map that tells us the SOI of the deployable. It was always a bitch to try and figure out where the other AMS is that's preventing you from deploying.
It's a the backdoor outside the walls, it always is.

[Blackwolf]

Well won't that increase team play? I'm pretty sure, It will force them to work together to push out.

Edit- I think it would be really cool if we could see one of the cert trees.

It won't encourage team play, that kind of situation would encourage rage quits first.

Whoah... While I don't think what you described is a problem, but I thought of a different one. The number of Galaxies that can fly above the base.

Shooting down a Gal shouldn't be that tough for the defenders - they have base turrets and AA weapons. With AMSs, you could only have like 3 or so in a courtyard, and it was impractical to keep more parked outside of the base. So if you took out some of those 3 AMSs, it would take a while for them to get replaced.

I can't think of any reasonable mechanic that would practically limit the number of Galaxies that can fly around and above the base and drop troops. Even if only 5 at a time could actually act as spawn points, this doesn't stop the rest from instantly becoming new spawn points after some of their friends get blown up.

That last part is a good point as well. However I think you are under estimating the high ground here. How easy was it to spawn at an AMS and get into the base compared to hot dropping from a Galaxy to get into the base? Also think about the CY, the turrets were far far from any covered locations, at intervals around the wall of the base. They are usually the first things that are blown up during an assault, and you expect them to shoot Galaxies down?

Even 3 Galaxies over a base would ensure that base is captured, because there's no way to counter them. OS strikes played a huge role in killing AMSes but airborn Galaxies would never stop moving. Fielding AA means that AA is vulnerable to enemy infantry which are raining down around them.

Think of some of the old tactics used in PS1, mossie or galaxy hot drops were used to try and take back the CC. Organized team play. If an enemy Galaxy tries approaching the hacked base, it has 3+ Galaxies that are probably armed or can be in an instant's notice. You'd have to assault your own base with ground vehicles equipped with AV/AI/and AA in order to "push out" the attackers. That isn't going to encourage team play, that is going to encourage rage quits.

[Traak]

I never saw anything that anyone tweeted or stated otherwise that indicated that people could spawn in an airborne Galaxy.

[FIREk]

I never saw anything that anyone tweeted or stated otherwise that indicated that people could spawn in an airborne Galaxy.

Check out today's PC Gamer article. It's supposed to be unlockable through the cert tree.

[SuperMorto]

I would say squad spawning in the Gal, but re-spawning in a landed gal. Or it could be abused.

[xSlideShow]

Even 3 Galaxies over a base would ensure that base is captured, because there's no way to counter them. OS strikes played a huge role in killing AMSes but airborn Galaxies would never stop moving. Fielding AA means that AA is vulnerable to enemy infantry which are raining down around them.

Think of some of the old tactics used in PS1, mossie or galaxy hot drops were used to try and take back the CC. Organized team play. If an enemy Galaxy tries approaching the hacked base, it has 3+ Galaxies that are probably armed or can be in an instant's notice. You'd have to assault your own base with ground vehicles equipped with AV/AI/and AA in order to "push out" the attackers. That isn't going to encourage team play, that is going to encourage rage quits.

So it's another balance debate you want, eh? Well I raise with. Trust the devs... I'm sure you can balance the mechanic. Galaxies were not the invincible gods. 1 Person could destroy one, since they'd hope to just be ignored. That's not going to happen now. They are going to be prime targets for the defending team.

Balance on a new mechanic isn't exactly something we can discuss. I'll humor you guys though. So what you guys are saying is what if the enemy just spams galaxies? Well are we able to just pull galaxies from where ever now? Or are they going to make us return to the safe area on the cont for it? That will lower the number we see and be a much greater undertaking for the attacking faction. Especially if they are to set up air raids on the defenseless galaxies, before they get anywhere near their objective. Also they are losing man power in there galaxy spam, I can't see an outfit going all out Galaxy Whores 9000. Pulling 20 galaxies just so the zerg can spawn in.
Maybe they will though, it's a challenge for the devs to balance.

I just can't see an issue with the mechanic. It will make the game faster, make attacking easier yes. This means the defense is going to have a very clear objective to remove that threat. They are going to be the very first things anyone shoots at. Everyone is going to be trying to kills these, just like an AMS. Yeah, AA is weak against infantry... But infantry can be killed by other infantry. Your squad is going to work together, this isn't even taking into account your other AA platforms. It's pretty hard to miss a galaxy, moving or not. Every pass they are gonna get torn apart.

It also provides, more fun for the AMS driver. I know big outfits like GOTR use to have the Galaxy pilot kinda just sit around the entire op. Now they can be providing a service, besides hanging out in their gal. What I see this doing is instead being rage quit whine whine QQ, it will provide a clear objective for both sides. Thus creating teamwork you are going to defend, you have to. Otherwise they are gonna get owned, it's not like these are gal gunships spawning troops, look at the recent screenshot of the gal. (I don't know how recent, looks familiar to me). That thing has no real protection, they are going to have to have D on top of them. I think we should let this one play out till beta.

IMO it's a great new spawning mechanic and it will make game play better. Yes, if balanced properly. It's not like it's impossible to balance something new...

[Xyntech]

I would say squad spawning in the Gal, but re-spawning in a landed gal. Or it could be abused.

If you're talking purely about balancing Gal spawning, we haven't had any confirmation about when a Galaxy will be able to respawn players. It may do it in flight (which I don't think would be as imbalanced as some do), it may have to land, it may have to land and deploy.

If you are also talking about balancing squad spawning, that's irrelevant. Squad spawning is pretty much like a sped up version of HART dropping. It isn't a primary means of spawning and isn't imbalanced.

[Blackwolf]

A lot of stuff, including another trust the DEVs remark.

I can't really bring myself to care about mechanics. For one thing, players will do whatever it takes to go through those mechanics. For another, anything that generated down time in the game is being systematically removed from the game. What makes you think the DEVs are going to try and make it hard to drive a Galaxy to a target base? That would generate down time and we can't have that.

Nothing will stop the Galaxies from coming to the base, except the opposing faction. And once those Galaxies are at the base, how can the opposing faction stop them by pushing out of that base? Most vehicle pads are in open air, AA MAX suits are vulnerable to the infantry dropping down on their heads, and there's 3 Galaxies in the air (most likely armed ones).

Yes there are thousands of ways to balance the mechanic. But the fact that you need thousands of ways to balance it is proof that it's a bad mechanic in the first place. MBTs didn't need much tweaking in PS1, they were awesome. Snipers didn't need tweaking at all, no complaints. Reavers had a bit of work, BFRs took years of tweaking, are you getting what I'm trying to say? No matter how much you tweak it, nerf it, buff it, balance it, whatever, a bad mechanic is going to stay a bad mechanic. You need to identify why it's a bad mechanic and cut it at the source.

In the case of the Galaxy, the bad mechanic is you have a flying fortress that acts as an air borne respawn point. Defenders don't stand a chance once the CY is cleared (which is typically when an AMS rolls in back in PS1). The solution? Make it land and deploy before it can serve as a AMS. Issue? That defeats the purpose of it being a troop transport. Better Solution? Nix the idea completely, let the Galaxy be a Galaxy, and make the Sunderer the mobile AMS (that requires deployment).

This isn't rocket science. Airborne respawn point = ultimate high ground. Fixing this issue won't be done until the DEVs have exhausted their options and by then the game will have launched and solving the issue will be impossible without a huge PR nightmare.

[xSlideShow]

I can't really bring myself to care about mechanics. For one thing, players will do whatever it takes to go through those mechanics. For another, anything that generated down time in the game is being systematically removed from the game. What makes you think the DEVs are going to try and make it hard to drive a Galaxy to a target base? That would generate down time and we can't have that.

K, what your saying is that it is impossible to balance? Your also saying that you are unwilling to accept anything because you think 3 galaxies which from the pictures we have seen thus far are completely unarmed no weapons mounted. Are going to own the world because they can drop the most disposable unit. Your saying that it won't make any sense to pull any other vehicle besides the galaxy and once inside, Teamwork just completely shuts down? Am I anywhere close here? I must be completely misinterpreting...

No one can push back the enemy infantry which is on par with your infantry?! They just keep slaying your wall of AA maxes cause that's the only thing that pulled. AA MAXES ARE GOING TO BE WEAK AGAINST INFANTRY?! You can put 2 weapons on your max. 2 maxes can have 2 AA 1 AV 1 AI... I don't think they are weak anymore. Pretty sure that it can be balanced. Simply, I think it's probably already balanced. It makes for destroying the spawn point easier. Cause all you have to do it is look up IT'S HUGE. Let's see in beta if your 3 Galaxy's = Auto God mode and then we'll talk. Otherwise this discussion is pointless, it's just a balancing issue. And I think the thing can be balanced, you say it's impossible. It will go nowhere. Your saying it's so impossible that it's a waste of time. I say we should try it. This is going to go on all day. I'm not gonna give up cause I want to see it implemented. Your not going to give up cause, you think it will destroy Planetside. We won't know until we see it in action. Look at it this way, the devs say they are going to listen to the community. A petition would probably work if you want to get their attention.

They have the AMS to fall back on. The sundy is in the game, they can just make that a spawn. Not much point with squad spawning. Which I think is way better than an AMS since, you can spawn with your gear on. It doesn't make sense to have an AMS. This provides much better game play if done right. I can't see, how you can't see that.

[Khellendros]

They have the AMS to fall back on. The sundy is in the game, they can just make that a spawn. Not much point with squad spawning. Which I think is way better than an AMS since, you can spawn with your gear on. It doesn't make sense to have an AMS. This provides much better game play if done right. I can't see, how you can't see that.

I strongly disagree that squad spawning makes AMS unnecessary, and it seems the devs agree because squad spawning doesn't appear to be the primary method.

[NewSith]

OP should've called this thread "The Great Wall of China"

[Gault]

Maybe allowing spawning will be a tactical feature of vehicles that you can add to them in the Vehicle Customization menu? Those kinds of features would be cool, make vehicles incredibly versatile.

[Xyntech]

Nothing will stop the Galaxies from coming to the base, except the opposing faction. And once those Galaxies are at the base, how can the opposing faction stop them by pushing out of that base? Most vehicle pads are in open air, AA MAX suits are vulnerable to the infantry dropping down on their heads, and there's 3 Galaxies in the air (most likely armed ones).

Bases are significantly larger than in PS1 and the layouts are significantly different. It looks to be a lot harder to take and hold an enemy courtyard.

Yes there are thousands of ways to balance the mechanic. But the fact that you need thousands of ways to balance it is proof that it's a bad mechanic in the first place. MBTs didn't need much tweaking in PS1, they were awesome. Snipers didn't need tweaking at all, no complaints. Reavers had a bit of work, BFRs took years of tweaking, are you getting what I'm trying to say? No matter how much you tweak it, nerf it, buff it, balance it, whatever, a bad mechanic is going to stay a bad mechanic. You need to identify why it's a bad mechanic and cut it at the source.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't just invent an MBT out of thin air, or a sniping system, or anything in a game really. You either come up with some ideas and then do extensive balancing, or you base it off of a preexisting design... and still do a ton of balancing. Just because some things didn't finish getting balanced until after launch doesn't mean that the things that were more balanced didn't have to go through rigorous testing early on.

In the case of the Galaxy, the bad mechanic is you have a flying fortress that acts as an air borne respawn point. Defenders don't stand a chance once the CY is cleared (which is typically when an AMS rolls in back in PS1). The solution? Make it land and deploy before it can serve as a AMS. Issue? That defeats the purpose of it being a troop transport. Better Solution? Nix the idea completely, let the Galaxy be a Galaxy, and make the Sunderer the mobile AMS (that requires deployment).

Again, this makes no sense. A galaxy has to land to be a respawn point = it no longer makes sense as a troop transport? What about air drops? It could still drop people in from above, while only allowing respawns to happen while it's on the ground.

Additionally, I'm pretty certain they have indicated that respawning from a Galaxy will be a modification to the Galaxy. It could very well be that you have to choose if you want to air drop people, or be able to land and let people spawn. If it were done like that, the respawn variant would pretty much just be an AMS that flew in instead of driving. Who knows if it would also have lower hitpoints, making it even more vulnerable.

As for overlap with the Sundererm assuming that the Sunderer gets a respawn feature, I have no problem with it. There were plenty of things in PS1 that had role overlap, but did it slightly differently. Customization is replacing duplicate vehicles with slightly different guns/stats from the first game and it allows for a lot more tweaking of things to make vehicles fit your own particular play styles.

I don't even have a problem with having a Galaxy that could spawn troops midair and a Sunderer that has to deploy. Give the AMS/Galaxy reduced hitpoints so that it's easy to spot and shoot down, while the deployed Sunderer get's a cloak bubble.

Basically, AMS is no longer needed as an individual, specialized, unique vehicle because customization allows other vehicles to be modified for that role. We aren't really losing anything, so much as gaining more versions of the AMS.

As for balance, as I said early, everything in a game is subject to balancing. It doesn't just magically balance itself.

This isn't rocket science. Airborne respawn point = ultimate high ground. Fixing this issue won't be done until the DEVs have exhausted their options and by then the game will have launched and solving the issue will be impossible without a huge PR nightmare.

Well aren't you a Negative Nancy. Go play PS1, hope that works out for ya. Meanwhile I'll be enjoying my lovely new PS2 with improved graphics, netcode, gameplay and *gasp* actual populated servers, like Planetside style gameplay requires.

"new idea sucks, the devs are retarded, this games gonna fail"

Yeah, real constructive. Stop being so afraid of change. A lot of successful, well made games have done things in a lot of different ways. There's more than one way to skin a cat, PS1 is not gospel. Game balance is not one size fits all.

---

They have the AMS to fall back on. The sundy is in the game, they can just make that a spawn. Not much point with squad spawning. Which I think is way better than an AMS since, you can spawn with your gear on. It doesn't make sense to have an AMS. This provides much better game play if done right. I can't see, how you can't see that.

Squad spawning is more like HART dropping. Spawn points will still be essential, although hopefully medics can hold more of the slack than in PS1.

[Khellendros]

I think we can be pretty confident that adding the spawn module to vehicles (Gal, sundy, etc) is likely to entail tradeoffs, as with any other module.

[Gault]

The devs so far have been remarkably receptive to the desires of the fanbase. I think that if something really is so large of a problem in terms of balance or game mechanics, they will implement changes to fix it.

It's an inevitability. From what I can tell, there is a LOT the devs plan to roll out post-release. Things like constructing bases and PvE combat, which will necessitate feedback by the audience to make them fit properly with the game.

I agree with Xyntech. Change is good, we just need to facilitate communciation with the devs to make sure it's the right change. I don't think the original Planetside with a new coat of paint would necessarily work.

@Khellendros, oh certainly. The respawn module/tube would probably take up space that could be used for something else like weapons or transport, etc.

[Xyntech]

It's just hard to give the best constructive criticism when we don't have hands on access.

[Gault]

Presumably that will change with the onset of the Beta. I have a feeling that Beta access will be immensely valuable to the devs, with how dedicated the community at PSU here is acting as their vanguard Beta-testers.

[Blackwolf]

Bases are significantly larger than in PS1 and the layouts are significantly different. It looks to be a lot harder to take and hold an enemy courtyard.


All you have to do is identify the key points (namely the doors leading out to the CY), and shoot them. Not hard at all. PS1, every base had roof access, a main yard door, and a back door. The more doors there are, the easier to enter and exit the base for either side. Can't really make it harder to control the CY, only make it harder to capture it.


That doesn't make any sense. You don't just invent an MBT out of thin air, or a sniping system, or anything in a game really. You either come up with some ideas and then do extensive balancing, or you base it off of a preexisting design... and still do a ton of balancing. Just because some things didn't finish getting balanced until after launch doesn't mean that the things that were more balanced didn't have to go through rigorous testing early on.



Sniping in PS1 was fun and challenging, but how much effort do you think went into coming up with the idea that the BD should require 2 shots to kill any infantry wearing more then infiltration armor? It balanced itself out, people found ways to cope with it and did so because they could. If snipers killed in one shot, people would have complained and rightly so, someone 300+m away shot and killed them in one hit. Fine in smaller FPS games but disastrous in an MMO, where such a trick can quickly be duplicated 300 times.

Tanks balanced themselves out because people found ways to cope with them. They had limitations and weaknesses (2/3 man crews, susceptible to jammer grenades, large bulky profiles). The tweaks done were minor and none game changing for the most part. Something as simple as the primary gun going to the driver would have destroyed that balance in PS1. Why do you think PS2 will be different at all?

BFR tweaks radically changed the way they functioned every time they changed. Huge changes in play style had to be made just to pilot them, or to attack them. Symptoms of a bad mechanic. I'm not sure there was an intended purpose for them to begin with, seemed like someone said "giant robots?" and someone else said "doo eet!". It was obvious to me that the over all design was just to throw in a stupidly powerful vehicle that was hard to get, and give it some "clever" weaknesses to exploit. Other then that, the role it served was largely adopted by the players as fire support.

Wasp had a role, it was tweaked and geared towards that role relatively quickly. People didn't like it but they were mostly aces who had been AA pilots all along getting jealous because the DEVs added something to allow other players to play AAAircraft roles.

Every other vehicle in PS1 had very little tweaking done. Mostly the more difficult mechanics such as the Aurora and the cheaper ones like the Thunderer. Not much for the Raider though.

Then you look at the Lasher and compare the level of tweakage that got compared to the other two HAs. It was a beloved weapon and a good one, but a bad mechanic. It was difficult to balance out and took a lot of fine tuning, time that could have been spent elsewhere.



Again, this makes no sense. A galaxy has to land to be a respawn point = it no longer makes sense as a troop transport? What about air drops? It could still drop people in from above, while only allowing respawns to happen while it's on the ground.

Additionally, I'm pretty certain they have indicated that respawning from a Galaxy will be a modification to the Galaxy. It could very well be that you have to choose if you want to air drop people, or be able to land and let people spawn. If it were done like that, the respawn variant would pretty much just be an AMS that flew in instead of driving. Who knows if it would also have lower hitpoints, making it even more vulnerable.


Wouldn't have a problem with that. The big issue I see is air born respawn point. The vehicle being able to act as air transport + respawn point + gun ship would make it stupidly overpowered as a support vehicle.

If you had to pick and choose between troop transport or an AMS that had to be grounded and maybe deployed in order to act as a respawn point, that would be fine. Air born respawn point? No, respawning directly in vehicle passenger and gunner spots? Hell no. Makes for bad combat and cheesey game play.


As for overlap with the Sundererm assuming that the Sunderer gets a respawn feature, I have no problem with it. There were plenty of things in PS1 that had role overlap, but did it slightly differently. Customization is replacing duplicate vehicles with slightly different guns/stats from the first game and it allows for a lot more tweaking of things to make vehicles fit your own particular play styles.


I never said the sundy does get one. I'm pretty sure the Galaxy is slated to be the only mobile respawn point. I just said it would be a better option to have the Sunderer take on the AMS role rather then the Galaxy. Harder to drive to a location then to fly there.


I don't even have a problem with having a Galaxy that could spawn troops midair and a Sunderer that has to deploy. Give the AMS/Galaxy reduced hitpoints so that it's easy to spot and shoot down, while the deployed Sunderer get's a cloak bubble.


Sunderer isn't going to take on the AMS role in any fashion, from what I understand. And an airborn spawn point is just a bad idea. Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean it's not going to present major problems for the game, the community, and the DEVs. You never see the guy that kicks you in the ass when he kicks you in the ass, remember this.


As for balance, as I said early, everything in a game is subject to balancing. It doesn't just magically balance itself.


I've noticed that most of the time, it does. The player base comes up with it's own methods for balance. Relying to much on the DEVs is like Americans relying to much on the government to dictate laws just because we don't like certain aspects of society.

Hell BFRs wouldn't have been so bad if the DEVs had rode out the bitch fits a little while longer and stopped tweaking the things. Some players got a kick out of deci drops. The rest of us were constantly coming up with on the spot tactics to counter them, like harassers. Instead the DEVs kept making changes and dragging that PR nightmare out longer and longer, because every time they nerfed something, they had to buff it. Both actions got angry responses from the player base and people from both sides of the table were rage quitting.


Stop being so afraid of change. A lot of successful, well made games have done things in a lot of different ways. There's more than one way to skin a cat, PS1 is not gospel. Game balance is not one size fits all.


They aren't using new ideas, they are using ideas from smaller FPS games and throwing them into an MMO thinking everything will be peachy. Two completely different styles of play to consider, and they don't seem to be considering it.

Also, I'll point out that indie games do things in different ways, other games don't venture too far from the current game market trends. They are successful because of tiny tweaks to what the last set of games did.

[xSlideShow]

Squad spawning is more like HART dropping. Spawn points will still be essential, although hopefully medics can hold more of the slack than in PS1.

I understand that I was just sayin between the squad spawning and the Galaxy, there is no need for an AMS. I agree that medics are going to play a bigger role.


Wouldn't have a problem with that. The big issue I see is air born respawn point. The vehicle being able to act as air transport + respawn point + gun ship would make it stupidly overpowered as a support vehicle.


Where is it mentioned that the Galaxy is going to be a gun ship? Anywhere? My understanding is that the Liberator is the gunship not the Gal. From what we have seen from the Gal, it has 0 protection. I don't know how many times I have had to say this to you. Are you reading? Here put ching chong chicken wong in your next post if you actually this. On top of all this the part I failed to mention. Is that your going to have to spec for the galaxy to act as a spawn point. Inc well eventually everyone is going to get it post.

I would like to for you to completely rewrite your reasoning for why the galaxy would be bad as a spawn point. That way I can maybe understand. From what I have read they are not going to need to make changes to the galaxy in it's current fashion because as long as it needs to be protected by other vehicles. It will be ok.

[Sifer2]

Well all I can say is hope they get the spawning right. It's probably the single most important part of the games pacing. If they make it too easy to spawn then the battles will never end an neither side can gain ground because of constant respawners. There has to be a way to strike a definitive blow against the enemy and destroy the source of their respawns.

Personally i'm hoping to see the two respawning vehicles require a resource to do that. So you have to do something like the old ANT runs to resupply them. Or fly the Galaxy back to base to refuel at least.

The squad spawning I am not as concerned about it since its by drop pod and is a squad leader ability I believe with a cooldown most likely. At least that is how it SHOULD work. Battlefield or COD style respawning would ruin the gameplay.

[Gault]

There also need to be force multipliers, ways to leverage one side's unique position/technology over another. Because things need to still be competitive if it's two equal-sized forces. Flanking should count for something. Cloaker sabotage should count for something. It needs to be hard enough to marshal forces to the right places so that losing men actually means something in terms of the outcome of the battle, and this will necessarily have something to do with the spawning system.

[Traak]

It's funny, to see people regard the Galaxy as imbalanced if it has guns. Evidently, the idea of not being able to gleefully rape a spawn point and all the newly-spawned soldiers in it is a game-wrecker for some people?

Funny, I thought this game was more about armed combat - against other people who can shoot back.

However, it seems more and more that this is not the case, as the preferred target for most players seems to be someone who is weaker, less armored, less armed, and preferably almost dead to begin with, or at least newly spawned and unaware of his surroundings.

[Raka Maru]

Would like to see the Gals flying around waiting for a ground troop to designate a drop zone. Slight red smoke or glow alerting those who are aware of their surroundings and not sleeping that a drop is coming. You would think the engies would have thoroughly CE'd the place before the signal went up. Current ground troops (squad leader?) would be well dug in, waiting for aircraft and enemy troops to respond.

Who will get there first? The reinforcements or the enemy quick response team?

Although I will miss the AMS as it was my primary truck that I drove everywhere, If squad and gal spawning works like this it will be interesting.

[Traak]

Would like to see the Gals flying around waiting for a ground troop to designate a drop zone. Slight red smoke or glow alerting those who are aware of their surroundings and not sleeping that a drop is coming. You would think the engies would have thoroughly CE'd the place before the signal went up. Current ground troops (squad leader?) would be well dug in, waiting for aircraft and enemy troops to respond.

Who will get there first? The reinforcements or the enemy quick response team?

Although I will miss the AMS as it was my primary truck that I drove everywhere, If squad and gal spawning works like this it will be interesting.
One positive benefit is that it will give support guys speed they never had before.

[Xyntech]

@Blackwolf

You seem to be mistaking things that were underpowered or had little attention given to them for being "self balancing."

Due to almost every infantry troop being able to carry HA ,and being that it was the end all be all of most indoor fights, and considering that indoor fights were the most important fights when it came to taking territory in PS1, HA had to be balanced as closely as possible. Anytime it went too far out of balance, everything fell apart.

Cloakers were always too weak. The fact that they could use boomers to make up for their knives and pistols did not balance them, it merely give them a more viable tactic, in what should have been an arsenal of viable tactics. I'm not talking about clever things that resourceful players used, I'm talking about ways that a new player can jump in and start being useful. Naturally, playstyles like cloaking will always have a longer learning curve, but players shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel just to provide similar levels of value to a team as the other units.

Sniping was most certainly not balanced. It was always a joke. It usually amounted to making the enemy run in latency lagging zig zag patterns. The mechanics of sniping were retarded, where strafing left and right caused less CoF bloom than making small, subtle adjustments. The best sniping tactics involved exploitation of other bugs in the game to attain a slightly more reasonable level of effectiveness.

Why did these underpowered, poorly balanced classes not destroy the game? Because they weren't empire specific and, more importantly, they weren't as large a part of the core gameplay as something like HA.

If the devs had actually cared about making every weapon, item, and feature in the game be just as important and useful as everything else, they would have had to focus a lot more attention on balancing them.

Balancing is serious business, even in games where you are mostly working off of a formula.

Sure there will be some things that get balanced correctly early on, but those things are few and far between.

You are underestimating the importance of balance passes and/or overestimating the prelaunch PS1 devs prowess at balancing things. They left a rather lopsided game in favor of a few certain playstyles.

Of course, in a game the size of Planetside, there will always be players who will play with something no matter how ineffective it is. There will also always be underpowered items and features, no matter how hard the devs work to balance the game.

I'm glad that they seem to be going more towards keeping all classes on a similar level of usefulness. Hopefully the fact that all six classes and every vehicle has their own skill tree remains incentive for them to give as many aspects of the game their due attention as possible.

Of course that will also mean more divided attention. That may not always be a bad thing either, if it means that they aren't waffling back and forth on the balance of one single weapon for weeks on end.

[Rivenshield]

If they make it too easy to spawn then the battles will never end an neither side can gain ground because of constant respawners. There has to be a way to strike a definitive blow against the enemy and destroy the source of their respawns.

That's my main concern as well.

[Figment]

The spawning system is one of the things I would really like to get more information on. As is, I can't give a value judgement, which is the main reason I've been avoiding most debate sofar as it is all speculation.


Either way, I'm not convinced at all a landed and deployed Galaxy fullfills a good role for a spawning point, where a flying Galaxy spawning point could be a potential OP unit in low pop situations, though rather poor at supporting an attack seeing as you can't actually return to a flying Gal to change class/weapons/etc.

The reasons for why it would not be a good spawning point as a landed unit is the requirements you need to meet in order to be valued as such:

* Low exposure during preparation period : while setting up your spawn point you should minimise detection and damage taking by the enemy. This means that you need to have a low profile. Stealth (cloak bubble), small size, not on radar and staying out of sight help in these matters. Galaxies (and Lodestars) as you may well know, are almost impossible to miss even from 10 miles away. A Sunderer has more stealth value than any air unit because it clings to the terrain and can therefore make much better use of hills since it does not have to hover above terrain, nor is as tall as a Galaxy. Hence it will be much easier to have line of sight on a Galaxy than any ground unit.

I see this as the number one concern, especially when you don't have air superiority or when there is a lot anti-air present (which seems to be more omnipresent in the new game due to the vehicle customization on every vehicle), making it rather hard to fly in a spawnpoint like that.

* Be a sustainable spawnpoint (semi-permanent): you have to be able to sustain your position close to the front line for the duration of the assault or defense.

A cloaking bubble really helps here, but you also don't want your deployment zone to be so big it is easily pinpointed. An AMS could be missed and overlooked completely by an enemy due to both those things. I don't think a Galaxy will, even with more hitpoints due to being an easier to detect and highest priority target. More hitpoints at the same time makes it harder for low pop situations, as it is much more difficult to deal with high hitpoint units if you don't have a lot of support.

* Be acquirable : I have my suspisions that it is a lot easier to obtain ground vehicles than it will be to otbain large air ships.

Sure there was talk of having locations and outposts where you could acquire some vehicles. But large airships has never been high on that list (in PS1 there was only one spot per continent for them), having those be available all over the place, but requiring one to have a sustainable front seems almost contradictory.

* Be positioned close to the frontline : If infantry wants to sustain an assault on a location with a fixed spawn point, the attackers will have to reach the defended positions faster than the defenders can retake them after a defender has been killed. Travel time from (mobile) spawn point to any to be captured point in the base should therefore be minimal. Squad spawning being outdoors and probably outside of SOI does not support this and walking from an adjecent zone's solid spawnpoint is lemming work, thus any mobile spawn point will have to fulfill this role. An AMS would presumably require less space, would be a bit smaller and would thus be more flexible to position it close by with less risk of being destroyed as it will be much easier to hide from observation and getting damaged.

I wouldn't mind a Galaxy variant as an alternative to the AMS, but I cannot see a Galaxy variant replace the AMS as the platform is just much less suited for the job.


Presumably we'll be seeing a lot more solid spawnpoints all over the map, especially around some of the smaller zones which can be captured. But then you get another problem holding these if such obvious respawn points are all you got (if you got them at all). Everyone who'd arrive to resecure would probably immediately detect and destroy them. After all, for a resecure you first remove your enemy's respawn capacity. And when someone knows where a spawnpoint is, it will be camped or destroyed as soon as possible. Hence why a cloaked AMS was such a good alternative - and even that got destroyed almost instantly.



So to those who state not to worry about the spawning methods, could you please explain why and how a Galaxy would perform the AMS role as good as or better than an actual AMS?

[Blackwolf]

You seem to be mistaking things that were underpowered or had little attention given to them for being "self balancing."

---------------
This is a wall of text that can be summed up. If you wish to read the summed up version, skip to the last line.
---------------

I see, so if it didn't get attention from the DEVs then something was still wrong with it, the DEVs just didn't care? Sniper rifles were underpowered, as were tanks, and Wasps. No that totally makes sense. Harrassers were underpowered too so obviously you are correct in your assumptions.

Complicated crap does not = powerful crap. It's just easily overpowered and difficult to balance.

Example: A solo MBT needs to have what level of armor? High armor and slow speed in order to make it easier for the pilot to shoot stuff with the main gun, thereby increasing it's probably kill/death ratios? Or lower armor and high speed, because no one grunt should ever have massive armor and heavy firepower? Or lower armor and lower speed for the same reason? Balancing it's armor becomes a challenging task that is probably impossible. Too little makes it useless as an MBT, while still balancing it out with it's gun. Too much makes it stupidly obvious that in order to kill anything on the battlefield, you have to have a tank.

Then you have to consider the gun, how powerful should it be? This has to be considered while considering maneuverability, speed, armor, and accuracy. Too much power and the armor would have to be less, turning a tank into a glass cannon. Too little firepower and the armor would have to be really tough, really tough armor is kinda hard to kill so even an infantry gun could score a large number of kills with high enough armor.

But it doesn't stop there! How do you balance issues like the Magrider railgun being locked into a straitforward position? Forcing the mag to turn it's entire frame towards it's target just to shoot it? Better maneuverability (faster strafe and reverse) means the Magrider will likely be the tank killer, simply because it can dance it's way around targets, while at the same time crossing terrain that it's targets can't cross.

Meanwhile all of these questions could be made much easier by going back to having a gunner manning the primary gun. BOOM half the tank is balanced, then all you have to do is balance each tank with it's empires specialties in mind and voila, Prowler is the fastest with the most ammo and quickest shots, Vanguard is the slowest with the heaviest armor and greatest firepower, Magrider is in the middle area with armor and speed, but can traverse terrain the other two can't. All that is needed are minor tweaks, because the vehicle balances itself out between gunner and pilot, forcing the two to work together to achieve optimal performance rather then the lone tank driver/gunner crying to the DEVs because he's dieing to fast while others cry because he isn't dieing fast enough.

Example Two: Lasher: As someone else has stated, the Lasher was nearly impossible to balance because of it's lash effect. MCGs didn't worry about a missed shot because they had 13 more coming behind it. Jack Hammers had the potential to do partial damage on a missed shot. Lasher never had to hit the target to damage it, ever. It could miss by 2m every shot, and still kill the target, yet the las effect on it's was hardly capable of quickly killing enemies. For the most part it was freaking useless and weakened the entire weapon for balance purposes (slower orbs, slower fire rates, lower orb damage). A lot of work went into balancing that Lasher, even making it a splash on impact weapon at times. And the lash itself featured bugs where it would lash twice, once on passing and again after it had passed. The mechanic was tough to balance, tough to code right, and impossible to correct. Why do you think they are cooking up a completely new HA effect for VS? They can't change the old Lasher effect, doing so would piss off the customer base that loved it. They can't give the VS a new HA because then the TR and NC would cry because the VS have two HA weapons. This is what you would call a PR nightmare.

Compare that to simpler weapons like the ES Pistols, the ES Rifles, the Harrasser, and Bolt Drivers. Most of these weapons had defined empire specific goals that they had to cater to, and were balanced against the other counterparts while keeping those goals in mind. They were relatively easy to balance because they lacked complicated mechanics like lash effects. Harrasser and Bolt Driver were stand alone examples. Nothing had to be balanced against the BD, and the Harrasser had it's own unique trick that the ES buggies lacked (hiding from enemy radar). Simple things, and yet the player base did so much with these simple things.

The game doesn't need complicated mechanics on every damned thing in order to be successful, on the contrary these mechanics make things so much worse.

Galaxy AMS would be a very complicated mechanic that is easily abused by the player base unless some very simple limitations were put in, like the AMS version being a variant that couldn't transport troops and had to land and maybe deploy. Easier still to just nix the idea and make a Sunderer variant that serves as an AMS. I know it's not as cool and shiney as a flying one, but it's easier to balance. And for eff's sake, we'd rather the DEVs worked on new content then fix old **** right?

--------------
Everyone says "It can be balanced and tweaked!". I say, why waste time balancing and tweaking an obviously difficult mechanic, when you can put something basic in? We'd still buy the game and shoot each other with it. The same hours spent balancing complicated mechanics could be spent making new toys. Like ES buggys, AI wildlife, and cities for urban warfare.
--------------

[Xyntech]

So to those who state not to worry about the spawning methods, could you please explain why and how a Galaxy would perform the AMS role as good as or better than an actual AMS?

I don't think a Galaxy would be a good replacement for the AMS on it's own, but combined with something like the Sunderer it would be nice to have the option.

If the Galaxy has to land to respawn players, they could use their speed and mobility to fly away from the battle, land somewhere safer, let people spawn into the Galaxy, and then fly them back in for an air drop.

That is of course assuming that you can't spawn into an in flight Galaxy, which would probably be hard to balance, and would seem to destroy the usefulness of the ordinary troop transport variant of the Gal.

It's also assuming that the AMS/Gal variant will still be able to transport troops. Maybe it could air lift slightly fewer numbers of troops and no MAXes.

--------------
Everyone says "It can be balanced and tweaked!". I say, why waste time balancing and tweaking an obviously difficult mechanic, when you can put something basic in? We'd still buy the game and shoot each other with it. The same hours spent balancing complicated mechanics could be spent making new toys. Like ES buggys, AI wildlife, and cities for urban warfare.
--------------

I agree that there are simpler game mechanics and more complex ones, but a complex mechanic doesn't always = a bad one. Sometimes there's need for a more complex solution, although I tend to think simplest is usually best as well.

The Bolt Driver and Harasser and everything else absolutely should be balanced against the rest of the game. Sure the overall game was playably balanced despite some equipment being sub par, and certainly there were still uses for almost everything in the game. However, that ignores the fact that there were several items in PS1 that were not as useful as they would have been in an over all well balanced and constructed game. The PS1 devs just didn't give due attention to certain things and just left a lot of things as being slightly useful, and counted that as being good enough since they were more niche items that wouldn't be used as much, compared to the core gameplay items.

HA was a tricky one because it was so pivotal to gameplay, yet all three sides handled it so differently. The Lasher being the most unusual and complex of the three was therefor the one must subject to complex attempts at balancing. The complex nature of the Lashers design was only a fraction of the problem. If it had been a less important type of weapon than HA, it would have never been as big an issue.

The mere fact that HA was such an ultimate focus of balance is proof that the game was not balanced across all equipment. If HA had been slightly more limited, like how PS2 is restricting it to the Heavy Assault class, the problem may have been mitigated and less time would have been spent on things like the Lasher. The Lasher would have still probably needed some tweaking, but it would have happened slower, with less knee jerk reactions to overcompensate for a bad patch.

As for tanks, I agree that the option of driving a solo tank will create a more complex system that will take more work to balance, but if the developers think that it's a worthwhile thing to put resources towards, so be it. I've never claimed that I preferred anything other than 2 man MBT's, but as I've said before, I'm willing to see what they come up with.

You over simplify everything that is on your side of the argument far too much, saying things like "BOOM! It takes care of itself and the devs don't even have to think about it's balance at all!", while anything you disagree with is made out to be some sort of insurmountable balancing nightmare that will bring the entire project crashing down.

The reality is that while some things are simpler and other things are complex, everything takes a fair amount of time and resources to make sure it's balanced within a game. Whenever possible, the simplest solution is usually best, but that doesn't preclude the simpler solutions from needing careful attention applied to their balance. There are also times when, for various reasons, the simplest solution won't cut it. Fortunately, complex solutions are still quite possible to balance.

[Crator]

I don't think a Galaxy would be a good replacement for the AMS on it's own, but combined with something like the Sunderer it would be nice to have the option.

If the Galaxy has to land to respawn players, they could use their speed and mobility to fly away from the battle, land somewhere safer, let people spawn into the Galaxy, and then fly them back in for an air drop.

That is of course assuming that you can't spawn into an in flight Galaxy, which would probably be hard to balance, and would seem to destroy the usefulness of the ordinary troop transport variant of the Gal.

Okay, this is a good point. Made me think of another what if... What if you have to land a GAL on a specific structure to enable the spawn mechanic?
I want more info!

Nice addition with the flame on the sig Xyntech!

[xSlideShow]

Okay, this is a good point. Made me think of another what if... What if you have to land a GAL on a specific structure to enable the spawn mechanic?
I want more info!

Nice addition with the flame on the sig Xyntech!

Hmm, what you speak of is strange...

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/main/psnext/screenshots/20111204_4edb923f140b5.jpg

[Crator]

^^^ Nice! :P

[Xyntech]

In PS1, loading a Galaxy often involves spawning at a base, grabbing your equipment, running outside, then loading up in the Galaxy.

Being able to spawn into a Gal to load it up quicker and easier would be a huge streamlining advantage. Even if it was limited to a certain area that the Gal had to land to do it, that would still make Gal drops a lot smoother.

Making infinite troops rain down from the sky may be a bit much, but I think the game would be improved by having easier Gal drops. Maybe it would be another factor to reduce the over use of hotdropping from disposable air cav, even if that was still the method of choice for rapid responders.

[Coreldan]

As for landing the Gal, I'm deeply concerned. As some have mentioned, we see no VTOL engines. Not only is it hard landing any aircraft properly in most games, but how about a Galaxy in PS? Especially when I doubt we will have that many landing strips around lol.

[Xyntech]

I'm confident that all air vehicles will still be VToL. It just may be that the entire engine pod doesn't rotate, only a section of it, the same as the PS1 Galaxy, or there may be some other thrust vectoring design going on.

Even with PS2 having larger bases, it just doesn't make sense that you would need a runway space to land and take off. They keep harping on the fact that they are increasing the pacing of PS2, so why would you make landing and taking off take even longer and be more convoluted?

Hovering in a Galaxy may end up being tricky, but I'm confident that the Gal and Lib are fully VToL.

[Figment]

Making infinite troops rain down from the sky may be a bit much, but I think the game would be improved by having easier Gal drops. Maybe it would be another factor to reduce the over use of hotdropping from disposable air cav, even if that was still the method of choice for rapid responders.

How does dropping more troops from the sky by making more use of Galaxies reduce the effect of mossy dropping, rather than amplify the amount of people that drop from above? :huh:

There is no pilot suit, just light assault, which means it'll be the exact same, other than that more Galaxies might be flying around.

[Xyntech]

How does dropping more troops from the sky by making more use of Galaxies reduce the effect of mossy dropping, rather than amplify the amount of people that drop from above? :huh:

There is no pilot suit, just light assault, which means it'll be the exact same, other than that more Galaxies might be flying around.

Because if Gal drops are quick and easy, and don't require passengers to wait around for ten minutes for the Galaxy to take off, more players may decided to forgo grabbing an ES fighter, especially since Light Assault won't have access to the heaviest weapons.

Everyone will (eventually) be able to pull every vehicle. Making sure that Gal drops are a lot less tedious will keep people from seeking out alternative methods.

If there is no Galaxy in the area, grab a fighter. Otherwise, just drop in from a Galaxy, with the option of stronger weapons and armor.

Besides, f the number of Gal drops goes up and the number of fighter hot drops stays the same, or goes up slower, that's still a percentage increase. I think any increase would be a good thing for the game. Not because it's forced, but because Galaxies are made as useful as they should be.

[Coreldan]

I think we also saw on AGN that Mossie seemed VTOL as well, whether or not it seems to have suitable engines for that.

[Xyntech]

I think we also saw on AGN that Mossie seemed VTOL as well, whether or not it seems to have suitable engines for that.

Nah, we've seen the Mossies engines rotated in a few pics, such as this one:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/main/psnext/twitter/20111122_4ecc12fb236eb.jpg

All of them probably have some amount of visualization for their thrust vectoring, we just haven't gotten the best look at some of the vehicles backsides yet.