Sunderer lifespan/role [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

View Full Version : Sunderer lifespan/role

acosmo

2012-01-12, 01:43 PM

Metalsheep

2012-01-12, 02:01 PM

SOE says the role of the sunderer will be transport/supply.

what is supply? can it replenish HA AV rocket pods? can it replenish engineer deployables? does it give ammoz?

regarding transport, whats kind of speed/maneuverability do they plan to give it? will it be able to outrun a prowler?

what kinds of defensives countermeasures will the sunderer have against the mob of vehicles and players trying to lance it?

imo i think it should be able to replenish all deployables and ammunition either infinitely or at a limited capacity. the guns on it should be effective against all but heavy armor. if infinite supplies are available, it should also have an equip term

Pretty sure the Sundy will come equipped with at least two turrets that are probably multi-role. They arent super effective against Armor, Softies or Air. But they deal moderate damage to all three. I think in order to supply Ammo or anything that it does, it should have to stop. Kind of like the loadstar.

I also hope it can outrun the MBTs and have enough armor to not be toast as soon as it enters the field. Maybe some of that spiffy Anti-Mine armor they gave the buggies in PS1, to make it a bit stronger versus Mines and Deployables. Since there will be thousands of players, i assume battlefields will be choked with mines and other CE deployables.

The original Sundys EMP was awesome, but it usually ended up only doing damage to the sundy with all the mines detonating. It was only super useful for scareing off vehicles or wrecking BFRs.

Coreldan

2012-01-12, 02:09 PM

Sunderer's supply-role is the part where it's the new AMS.

It's not final (or wasnt when Higgles mentioned it), but I'd say it will stay as the new AMS too in addition to Gal to some extent

Figment

2012-01-12, 02:35 PM

The original Sundys EMP was awesome, but it usually ended up only doing damage to the sundy with all the mines detonating. It was only super useful for scareing off vehicles or wrecking BFRs.

You are doing it wrong. :p

acosmo

2012-01-12, 02:50 PM

Sunderer's supply-role is the part where it's the new AMS.

It's not final (or wasnt when Higgles mentioned it), but I'd say it will stay as the new AMS too in addition to Gal to some extent

athough they said that it would be able to function as an AMS in the past, they recently reneged on that.

Coreldan

2012-01-12, 02:56 PM

athough they said that it would be able to function as an AMS in the past, they recently reneged on that.

I must've missed that, care to dig it up?

acosmo

2012-01-12, 03:34 PM

I must've missed that, care to dig it up?

i forget exactly where, but if you read the information we're getting you can tell they do not plan for sunderer spawning.

Question: the AMS may have been slow, but it served a vital purpose. Will there be a ground-based cloakable spawn point of some sort?
Higby: infiltrators in your squad when you have a squadleader with squad spawning spec'd. <trollface>
==( i know he doesn't rule it out here, but if he isn't then he's making quite a big of effort to ignore it )

Do we still have a sanctuary? Or is it replaced with something else?
The sanctuaries and shuttle system do not exist in PlanetSide 2 since they slow down the gameplay. You will be able to spawn directly on squad mates based on skills, squad spawning can only happen outside since squad spawning actually drops a capsule from the sky. Additionally you will be able to spawn in Galaxies.

Redshift

2012-01-12, 03:42 PM

it does need a defined role, since the way they've done the cert system means no one is actually going to need a ride anywhere

DviddLeff

2012-01-12, 03:42 PM

I think it will just act as a spawn point and may have an equipment terminal on it when its stationary.

acosmo

2012-01-12, 03:54 PM

I think it will just act as a spawn point and may have an equipment terminal on it when its stationary.

why do you think it will act as a spawn point? where is the information suggesting that?

Coreldan

2012-01-12, 04:00 PM

I personally don't think that having nothing but Galaxy as a mobile spawn point and the occasional squad leader spawn (was said to not be anywhere near the primary way to spawn).

I'd figure at least by closed beta with the player suggestions we will get a ground "AMS", and I'd still guess Sundy is the best vehicle for it.

Also, the render of sundy seemed to have something that resembled the side of a current AMS. Optionally it couldve been some MAX passenger slot :D

acosmo

2012-01-12, 04:02 PM

acosmo

2012-01-12, 04:44 PM

I must've missed that, care to dig it up?

Found it.

@kevmo0 Kevin Moyer
@BastiVC @Vanu4Life @mhigby While the Sunderer has several unique support features and can take a beating, it does not have AMS features

SKYeXile

2012-01-12, 05:01 PM

The is really weak, the AMS served a vital roll of stengthining front lines, been a FvFvF game the AMS provided a mobile spawn point that inforced this front line. im not sure you're average gal pilot willbe able to do that since they would be dropping troops alover the place. (Dropping random people into water anyone?) Perhaps is a design thing to do with vertical gameplay?

Also if spawning as all based around squad leaders, again we're not catering the game towards the common gamer, the casual. Look at what happened to BF3 when they changed it so you default load into a match not in a squad...nobody joined squads.

They're basicly making this so that you have to be in a squad: with somebody who's speced heavley into squad leadership.

You're average player will find this frustraiting, they will die in the front lines and go back to a base and grab a vehcile or they will simply quit if they dont like driving a vehcile. Also
the AMS creats dynamic battles depending on their placment, battles are aways unqie with AMS's in planetside depending on where they're placed and players decided to attack from there. if bases and towers are really the only ground bases mobile spawn npoint, you will get a funning thing happening like what happned in WAR, where players always fight over the same terrain. Yea the gal maybe okay, but im never going to spawn in one, there is to amny retards who cant FLY in PS1 yet alone PS2 with a proper physics engine, knowing my luck ill spawn in everytime and then die instantly.

SUNDY FOR MOBILE SPAWN POINT!

SuperMorto

2012-01-12, 05:06 PM

what about spawn tubes, and points that have been captured, the world is more dense now with more possible command points, so does this not mean there will be many more spawn points?

SKYeXile

2012-01-12, 05:08 PM

Ailos

2012-01-12, 05:15 PM

what about spawn tubes, and points that have been captured, the world is more dense now with more possible command points, so does this not mean there will be many more spawn points?

I'm not sure you would be able to spawn at every bunker, but then again, you never know. If you can, then having a mobile ground-based spawn would be somewhat redundant.

DviddLeff

2012-01-12, 05:21 PM

I dunno; being able to set up a ground based spawn point in an unexpected position is always going to be a good option.

If squad leaders can set up their own rally points for spawning it may not be so much of an issue...

acosmo

2012-01-12, 05:28 PM

The [what] is really weak. the AMS served a vital roll of strengthening front lines. being an FvFvF game, the AMS provided a mobile spawn point that enforced this front line. im not sure [that] youraverage gal pilot will be able to do that since they would be dropping troops alover the place. (Dropping random people into water anyone?) Perhaps is a design thing related to vertical gameplay?

Also if spawning is all based around squad leaders, again we're not catering the game towards the common gamer, the casual. Look at what happened to BF3 when they changed it so you default load into a match not in a squad...nobody joined squads.

They're basicly making this so that you have to be in a squad: with somebody who's specced/spec'd heavily into squad leadership.

Your average player will find this frustrating. they will die on the front lines and go back to a base and grab a vehicle or they will simply quit if they dont like driving a vehicle. Also,
the AMS creates dynamic battles depending on their placement. battles are aways unique with AMS's in planetside depending on where they're placed and players decided to attack from there. if bases and towers are really the only ground bases mobile spawn point, you will get a funneling thing happening like what happned in WAR, where players always fight over the same terrain. Yea the gal may be okay, but im never going to spawn in one. there are too many retards who cant FLY in PS1 let alone in PS2 with a proper physics engine. knowing my luck ill spawn in everytime and then die instantly.

SUNDY FOR MOBILE SPAWN POINT!
sorry man. i know this isn't english class but sometimes errors make language much harder to read. i made some minor improvements but it's still really shaky(btw i have reserverations against capital letters, don't ask)

SKYeXile

2012-01-12, 05:31 PM

To me i just really like the idea of a sundy been a mobile base.

Its got weapons so once its deplyoed it could still be defended. perhaps not cloak this time since its got defenses, and people spawn with proper gear i presume?

then its acts as a mobile ammo/resupply and spawn point and possibly vehciles and aircraft..or atleast give it the option to have different modules, or upto 2 or something.

You could make a base out in the open like you do in planetside with an ams and loadstar. have einginners defend it with deployables, maybe deployable walls? i really think a ground based mobile spawn point adds to the over sandbox nature of what planetside 2 could be.

SKYeXile

2012-01-12, 05:34 PM

sorry man. i know this isn't english class but sometimes errors make language much harder to read. i made some minor improvements but it's still really shaky(btw i have reserverations against capital letters, don't ask)

If i cared, i would install spell checking.

acosmo

2012-01-12, 05:36 PM

If i cared, i would install spell checking.

please just try to write proper for the rest of us?

SKYeXile

2012-01-12, 05:44 PM

please just try to write proper for the rest of us?

I'll install spell checker just for you...some of my other posts probably need touching up though, if you don't mind?

sylphaen

2012-01-12, 06:01 PM

what about spawn tubes, and points that have been captured, the world is more dense now with more possible command points, so does this not mean there will be many more spawn points?

I'm thinking along the lines of Morto. Maybe there will be a lot of tower-like spawn facilities evenly spread-out over the place and with some kind of lattice system that will keep a front line active.

Like fighting in a canyon, for instance, you would progress by taking facility after facility and eventually get closer to the next base that way. The big-base being the grand finale.

Those mini-spawn facilities could be of many different sorts and have parallel lattice links thus avoiding the ToD syndrom.

Of course, that's 100% assumptions and 1% outdated info.
:rolleyes:

Figment

2012-01-12, 07:30 PM

I'm under the impression they are going to "steal" some Battlefield spawning mechanics for this. Something which those games been doing for a long time is spawn points near capture points in the field (and usualy resulted in spawncamping annoyances as they were out in the open), so I would assume there'll be more indoor spawn points. Perhaps even multiple in one base?

However, I don't like the idea of the Sunderer as an AMS. Simply because an AMS was specifically designed (and redesigned) for battlefield spawning and (re-)equiping. A Sunderer needs most of its exterior for entry points and in this game for viewports for infantry to fire from.

Not sure if any of you remember the old AMS design, with its two spawntubes and one equip term? You know, from when the offline tutorial still existed. That was redesigned to have two equip terms and one spawntube, because the single equip term was not enough for the frequency of use with so many troops spawning at it. Annoyingly, this may be one rationale for why they let people spawn in their choice gear. PJs were done for good reason: to make spawn areas not impossible to take out as he who spawns can get there more often than he who spawns far away and has to make its way there. The firepower of pjs adds up over multiple spawns as they are closer to the fight (until camped).

The infantry firing from it I think is well intended, but going to work out as a rather poor idea: it is very ineffective and inefficient. Unless you'd use it stationary as a mobile bunker, which... would make you a sitting duck. Why not mobile firing? Because you'd just get motion sick, just like you would in the ball joint gun on the current Sunderer, which you could hardly get a shot on target with as it was low and usualy not aimed at the enemy. (Who would show their huge side as a target to the enemy?). We'll see if proven wrong in beta.

But yes, the Galaxy will not suffice for spawning methods and squad spawning is not sufficient by miles, not to mention annoying. For both side, even if it happens by drop pod. Imagine if you try to do a covert assault and the first thing that people see is Hart drop pods.

Plus, I presume this would also be done on command from the squad leader only? Because if not: "lalalalala I'm an infil in the field nobody sees me lalalalala OMG Y YOU PENIX NOOBS SPAWN ON ME!?". Which means you really need people to have other spawn options. But if a solid spawn point is defended, how are you going to get reinforcements behind enemy lines? Clearly a Galaxy won't ever do: too large, too obvious and too easy a target.

And speaking of AMSes, what about Routers?

BorisBlade

2012-01-12, 08:02 PM

AMS sounds like a very good idea.

Just used as transport its very very very limited and frankly a waste of a vehicle. Every ground vehicle, including transports, must be also have roles as attack vehicles. They must be as good options as getting a tank on average. Yes they cant do the things a tank could do, but should bring other things they can do that a tank cant. In PS1, unless you are rushing a tower or tryin to break thru base shields in a highly organized assault (which almost never happens) then you should never get into a sundy. A tank is a better option.

Much like the buggie situation in ps1, a sundy has the same probs, a tank is always better. So my biggest hope is they learn from the mistake and give it a solid role that promotes it as not only transport, but as a very solid attack vehicle if equipped right (that works just as well, yet in a different way, compared to a tank), or even an AMS. The customization really allows them to just design basic platforms and let the customizing turn the vehicles into many different roles.

Hmr85

2012-01-12, 09:22 PM

sylphaen

2012-01-12, 09:34 PM

I mentionned it in a very old post but I am against the sunderer, a transport vehicle, also being a spawn vehicle.

Why ?

Because to balance it, they would have to nerf its armor, speed, firepower or utility.

Sundy/Delis in PS1 were terrible transport vehicles because of that issue (they were putting too much firepower or armor at the expense of speed on those vehicles - slow transport vehicles do not cut it).

If they truly have transport vehicles in PS2, they should perform at the aspects making them good transport vehicles.

If Sundy is transformed into an AMS, it could not be a good transport vehicle as well for balance reasons.

acosmo

2012-01-12, 09:45 PM

sylphaen

2012-01-12, 10:02 PM

The only thing I am saying is that in the end, we should have a proper spawn vehicle or a proper transport vehicle.

Not a bastardized version of things which doesn't excel at a specific purpose.

Now if their plan is to let us do the balance through customization and "create" an AMS or "create" a real transport vehicle through the Sunderer frame (like we will create AA from the tank frame), it's ok too.

2 different vehicles with the same model is a bit bland though.

Refer to the concept of APCs and IFVs if you want to understand better my idea of a transport vehicle.

sylphaen

2012-01-12, 10:07 PM

so you're saying that by denying the sundy ams features, they are making the sundy into a proper transport?

No, what I am saying is that if they gave the sunderer AMS capabilities, then they must already have balanced it around that idea and nerfed other aspects of the vehicle.

I am not trying to waste the idea of having AMS in PS2. I am pushing for good transport vehicles because there were no proper group transport vehicles in PS except for the galaxy (and this is an air vehicle).

Of course, you could count the harassers and quads as good transport vehicles because they had speed but I see them more as personal ground transport vehicle.

Now if a group ground transport vehicle does not fit in the game, then we don't need one implemented either.

Find me someone who commonly used PS1 sundies and delis as transport vehicles and truly believed that it was the best option to move a group of people around.

DayOne

2012-01-12, 10:19 PM

I like the idea of an AMS becoming just a spawn point. Then some new transport vehicle being used as a equipment terminal. A few defences and some sort of deployable barrier and you have yourself a little command post. Would put more emphasis on team work, even if it's just one guy yelling "Get a AMS and [new support vehicle] down here NOW!" Could make for some interesting gameplay.

CutterJohn

2012-01-12, 10:39 PM

Find me someone who commonly used PS1 sundies and delis as transport vehicles and truly believed that it was the best option to move a group of people around.

There won't be one, and there would never be. Moving people was not a very important task in PS1, and when people needed to be moved, Gals were far superior. Faster, able to bypass all ground defenses, able to put troops on top of the base/tower. It was uncommon for AA to be thick enough to prevent a drop from occurring.

And considering everyone will have access to vehicles due to the train everything system, faster access to HART drops, etc, I can't see arranging to move bodies being that difficult. Balancing a vehicle to be solely a ground transport vehicle would be a bad idea, since ground transport is just not that powerful of an ability. Giving the sunderer AMS capabilities as well would be an excellent choice.

sylphaen

2012-01-12, 10:52 PM

Hopefully, it won't be labelled as a "ground transport" vehicle as that would be misleading.

No point either in saying there is no AMS if a new or old vehicle acts like one.

I'm really curious to see the intended gameplay of PS2 because as of now, putting together thoughts from different threads, I am thoroughly confused about the kind of game they are making.

However if it's successfully done and fun to play, it won't matter in the end.
:)

All speculation until beta !

acosmo

2012-01-12, 10:54 PM

I'm really curious to see the intended gameplay of PS2 because as of now, putting together thoughts from different threads, I am thoroughly confused about the kind of game they are making.

i think anyone who has a clue, has no clue. amen

Figment

2012-01-13, 06:36 AM

Find me someone who commonly used PS1 sundies and delis as transport vehicles and truly believed that it was the best option to move a group of people around.

*raises hand* Our outfit was completely based on GT as primary means of combat and getting around unless speed was of more essence (then by air). Here's a way old topic of mine, from before the forum switch even about how to use GT: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/posts/list.m?topic_id=600014021

It did a hell of a lot better job at transporting people at a low profile to a backdoor or front door than a Galaxy ever would. A Galaxy drop is announced to people in base almost a minute in advance as it can be seen and heard coming from long distance. Galaxies loading up in another base are also scouted easier as they stick out like a soor thumb and people thus can prepare more easily for them. Bases like Hvar, Qumu and Bomazi are much easier to take with a double or triple Sunderer assault (first sunds are driver only and act as CY minesweepers/decoy/protective wall to unload behind) than with a Galaxy.

As for Deliverers and variants... Situationally they can definitely be better than a Galaxy for a drop as well and of course are extremely suited for raiding modules and LLUs.

Hapi, Caer, Orisha, Tore, Nzame, Mukuru, Voltan, Naum and I could name a number of other bases which are best attacked by water. Best to attack those over water and sneak up from out of sight behind the hills, then to play Wagner and attempt a Galaxy drop which everyone sees coming from miles away and wants a piece of. We once pulled of a 25 men, 5 deli assault on Hapi, we didn't encounter opposition in this frontline interlink base until we reached spawns: everyone was watching the skies and making their way to the vpad even as we came down through the BD. If we had come in a Galaxy, we'd have had many aircav waiting at the dropzone.

Problem is many people like you believe it foolish and thus don't ever even try to do drops by ground out of fear it may fail. Especially based on experiences with the old Sunderer and the overall incompetent drivers that do not take a proper approach route that is obscured by hills.

And if all else fails, just use a Lodestar and put the Sunderer inside for maximum armoured protection and least chance of getting OSed.

Then again, a Gal drop was never so obvious that some CR5s who "never saw it coming" already have three OSes ready waiting minutes in advance on one of the possible drop targets, now was it?

sylphaen

2012-01-13, 07:07 AM

Well I'm glad to have found a group of players using the ground transport cert effectively then ! Congratulations of convincing people to use it like that.(and I am not being sarcastic... I have the ground transport cert and abused the aurora in all ways imaginable)

Now trying to explain to random users that they should bail before the vehicle blows up was another thing.

Problem is many people like you believe it foolish and thus don't ever even try to do drops by ground out of fear it may fail.

You are assuming things, here.
:)

I am the guy around here asking for faster ground transport with decent firepower and decent armor... Why ? Because the sunderer was under-utilized and it was sad.

And if they did not have an OSes ready for sunderers, I'd venture in saying that the top reason is that 1 time out of 50, it's a waste of an OS unless the Sundy is full. The second reason is that it happened once every full-moon but the effect of surprise would have worn off fast had the sundy been used more.

Overall, the issue remains that the ground transport cert was under-utilized and even more so as max BR increased. Sundies were not an attractive alternative for transport and as such, I consider that it failed. That's why you see me lobby for good transport vehicles and not sacrificial slow behemoths made to break into a CY.

acosmo

2012-01-13, 07:13 AM

well figment, you seem to be very knowledgeable about GT. what would you hope to see in the PS2 sunderer?
customization options, abilities, weapons, secondary systems?

Figment

2012-01-13, 12:16 PM

well figment, you seem to be very knowledgeable about GT. what would you hope to see in the PS2 sunderer?
customization options, abilities, weapons, secondary systems?

That depends really on a lot of things.

First of, it depends on how individual players will play. Unfortunately the role of transportation was swiftly reduced in PlanetSide when people got the chance to play solo vehicles en mass. As such, when I started playing, Sunderers were always full as battle ranks were limited to 20 and a lot of players chose to focus on just one or two vehicles and the remainder in medic, combat engineering and weaponry.

After a half year, they were half empty if not empty as people figured out Mosquitos and Reavers were way more effective and most people could afford the certpoints. On top of that, there wasn't a whole lot of reasons to do drops on.

So far, I've seen way too many incentives for anyone to ever want to fire from the limited sideview of a bus: Lightnings, main battle tanks, aircraft, each and everyone of those vehicles has its own hitpoints and a gun for the pilot or driver.

In the current scenario as I see PS2 unfold, the only reason to use a transport vehicle is to force people to stay together as a group to reach a particular target. As the Galaxy doubles as spawnpoint and thus will be around a lot and can reach different entrypoints in bases more easily (especially as the size of bases has increased, I presume it becomes harder to OS the dropzone), they'll most likely be used most.

The Sunderer therefore requires not just a transport, but also a combattive role.

The question is how customizable you'd want it to be and how customizable it can be. You can't really add AA to it, because then you have a super strong armoured AA vehicle for two people, instead of say the Lightning's light armour AA vehicle. Why use the Lightning then? Besides, it'd reduce the need for escorting service by other units (yet again) and that IMO reduces teamwork need.

So I'd personally prefer more well-defined, specialized vehicle roles and less customization that infringes on the niches of other units. So, I wouldn't mind if it had say a fixed dual 75mm and dual 20mm for rate of fire (like the current Vindicator), but where you could tweak angles, rate of fire and power of the guns by say... 20% (10% deviation from standard)? Perhaps you could change one AV weapon (75mm) for another (Gauss gun), as long as it has the same role.

The EMP blast in PS1 was a nice feature, but IMO it infringed heavily on the CUD EMP blast through its implementation. I mean one blast every 30 seconds, or one blast every 15 minutes? Not quite fair, is it? I'd say two blasts per vehicle would have sufficed. With the EMP blast alone, I've disrupted so many vehicles and we killed quite a few tanks because of it.

The extended Dark Light range for the Sunderer side ball joint was just ridiculous. Who uses a side aimed 80meters distance Dark Light? Besides, how is this DL range fair to an infil? So I'd remove that.

But some ideas?

I wouldn't mind the option of an anti-mine shovel on front at the cost of speed, but improved ramming and moving of other vehicle carcasses.

I wouldn't mind a temporary or perma-AMS-like cloak bubble (come to full stop, deploy: say 30 second cloak shield) to evade detection or try to lose people in pursuit. This would also help in protecting players who are getting out of the vehicle at the drop off point (especially if you have an animation for it). On a capacitator, of course.

Deploy in field to obtain a limited radar installation (detects vehicles in line of sight with radar only), or as a sensor disruptor.

EMP Blast could remain an option, but limited in number.

Amphibious undercarriage at the cost of speed and agility.

Some options for the wheels and engine could be nice. Acceleration tuning with a bigger engine, wider wheels for more grip, that sort of thing.

But if we're looking at multi-role vehicles and removing the need for many different vehicle models, which is what the PS2 dev team seems to want, there is some other options which I wouldn't always advice. You could then look at being able to remove the entire or parts of the backside and use it as a truck with transport capacity.

For instance, you could replace sections and have two infantry slots instead of one MAX slot and the other way around. Tailor it to the needs of the drop.

Option for a small vehicle transport bay instead of infantry slots (would have loved one for ANTs, in fact designed amphibious ES Sunderer variants with this option before).

Upgradeable/deployable in field as a mobile bunker for infantry (for instance, can open a side for walking in/out and then allow fire from viewports out the other side). However, I once had an idea for PS1 to create a new engineer cert that would allow the addition of camonets and sandbags around a vehicle, to make it into a field turret/bunker. (Along with the idea of using a modified version of tree top leafs as ground cover for infantry to hide in). In combination with the AMS cert, I gave this engineer the ability to deploy bunkers in the field by means of a new vehicle. Such a feature could also be implemented, where the back of the Sunderer is changed into a construction vehicle for fortifications and other structures or terrain features (small lookout towers, bunkers, U-shaped trenches, walls, tank traps, fast laying of minefields).

Option for equip term on the back with limited nanite supplies at the cost of infantry transportation spots (much like aegis). But then we're basically almost at an AMS and you might as well include an option for that role. Unfortunately that would mean you'd never get an AMS, so I'd rather not see that. Unless it basically gets the same attributes as an AMS, so instead of a transport and combat vehicle, it is converted into a pure AMS.

In the same line of thinking, one could have an option for a small repair silo or vehicle bay on the back with limited nanite supplies for repairs and rearming. Again at the cost of infantry transportation spots. However, this would significantly reduce the role of Lodestars, unless repair capacity is extremely limited in comparison or is only for ground vehicles, whereas Lodestar is for both or only for aircraft. In theory one could even create an aircraft landing pad on the back.

Figment

2012-01-13, 12:21 PM

*doublepost*

PoisonTaco

2012-01-13, 12:31 PM

I bet you the Sunderer is going to be very versatile. You know how they were saying you can spec the fighter to either be air-to-air, air-to-ground or just super fast recon? That's likely going to be the case for the Sunderer. Options to turn it into the AMS by sacrificing some of its battle capabilities.

Now I never played the original Planetside as I was kind of young when it came out, but aren't the devs saying it will be easier to kill people in Planetside 2? This means people are going to die more often so there needs to be ways to bring people back into the battle. Sure we have squad spawning, but they've said that's going to have limits. In Battlefield games nothing sucks more than running across the map to die, then spawn back at the main base only to run across the map again. Maybe the more patient players could put up with this, but for folks who only have 1-2 hours a night to game that's an issue.

The Sunderer will likely have multiple roles it can fill, but not all at once.

acosmo

2012-01-13, 01:14 PM

http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg737/scaled.php?tn=0&server=737&filename=e7fybv.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640
@poisontaco you're right. the turrets in this pic are the same ones on the es mbts in the top down comparison shot. in particular the sundy has two of the 50cal ish mgs that they put on the magrider turret spot. they have, however, said the sunderer will lack AMS abilities.

@figment given the information we've received, i have a warm fuzzy feeling that they will allow for amphibious sunderers.

otherwise, i think most of the things you said regarding its base role/capabilities are going to be implemented.
+ is shorter to allow for firing upon closer targets
+ has two heavy machine guns instead of cannons (allows for more versatility)
+ will probably be faster than in ps1
+ may have equipment terminals
- will probably not have as much armor as in ps1

P.S. the lodestar is not going to be in PS2 and orbital strikes will be a much, much less frequent occurance. they will most likely be much less effective as well. also consider that emp may no longer detonate mines

Figment

2012-01-13, 03:36 PM

We'll probably have to be somewhat vocal in beta about certain things.

What bothers me a bit is that for a remake, we get rather few units to work with. :/ Would much much much rather see a lot of niche vehicles than so many the same vehicles that cover every niche possible, while a lot of specialized and tactical vehicles are removed.

The Lodestar for instance, what's wrong with having transportation units for ground vehicles? That just makes fast response aircraft more important. And it's not like those were unimportant in PS1 already... At the moment next to Skyguard, Flail and Lodestar, I presume the Router and Switchblade won't make it in either. Buggies and ANTs may not make it in, certainly not on beta launch, but if they do, it'll probably be a frame that replaces both the ES buggies and Harasser. AMS isn't in as it is included in one of the most unsuitable units for an infantry assault (Galaxy is a paratrooper assault vehicle, not infantry) and as spawning mechanisms have changed drastically. All fighter aircraft are incorporated in one frame per empire, two tank vehicles per empire have every role possible, the Sunderer may or may not take up the roles of both Sunderer variants AND the Deli variants... That's almost half the vehicles, isn't it?

acosmo

2012-01-13, 03:43 PM

ps2 isn't a remake, it's a "re-imagining"

Figment

2012-01-13, 04:46 PM

ps2 isn't a remake, it's a "re-imagining"

So it's a remake, otherwise it'd been a sequel. xD

sylphaen

2012-01-13, 07:21 PM

I agree with Figment on his posts.

EMP, more armor and the extended DL range were OP utilities that were slapped on the Sundy to make it more attractive. And it became used just for those things.

Same with the deli variants. The only reasons I had people in my Aurora was for the OP AI guns that could also serve as 2-shot long distance mortar. Believe it or not, in single shot mode, it was the most accurate weapon in the game once the arc was set on target. Pinpoint accuracy for long distance.

Figment has a point that I'd like to echo when he explains that customization may solve issues by adapting our vehicle utilities to what we need. With a point system and favorites, it could work quite well.

Here is an example of how I see it:

eg.: Sunderer basic skills and default set-up, you have 10 points. By skilling up transport, you get more options to choose. Once skill at the top could be like +2 points to spend for the Sundy set-up.

Basic set-up: 100% speed, 100% armor, 6 softy spots, 2 MAX spots = 10 points total.
Take out a MAX spot, it frees up 2 points and +5% speed, +5% armor.
AMS functionality could cost like 4 points, -20% armor, -20% speed.
EMP functionality could cost like 4 points, -20% armor, -20% speed, 8 minutes recharge. (spend another 4 points to lower recharge at 4 minutes)

Of course, this is just an example and it may likely not work like that in PS2 since it would require some kind of visual changes on the vehicle as you change its set-up.

For the art dept., it's much easier to just change the weapons model and keep the vehicle model looking the same.

Again, I agree with Figment that, diversity wise, we may have a bland game at launch when it comes to vehicle models.

Xyntech

2012-01-14, 03:09 PM

I hope they do make the sunderer have at least an optional variant that allows it to act as a spawn point.

If not, hopefully we at least get something like deployable spawn points that engi's can build (only out doors).

Grognard

2012-01-14, 03:47 PM

Xyntech

2012-01-14, 03:50 PM

Well, if spawning is a command tool/ability, and the sunder is involved, perhaps a commander is authorized (via skilltree) to enable "codes" for the recieving pad on the roof of the sunder (ala WH 40 Space marine drop pods), so we spawn from a pod to the sunder via a big ass bang...

I dunno... I think I might like that... LOL :cool:

Squad spawning via the command tree is a limited use ability that will not be a primary means of respawning.

It involves your character being dropped in from orbit in a pod, so it won't work indoors. Presumably it will have a long cool down as well.

I don't know if you played the first game, but if not, that game had a similar function called the HART shuttle. You would get into it from a building in your empires safe zone (it launched once every 15 minutes), and then you could drop in all over the world.

Grognard

2012-01-14, 03:58 PM

Ah ok, I was under the impression that the commander toolset for respawning would be more robust, so a cool sunder-based respawn idea seemed applicable here.

Edit: I played PS1 a little.

Figment

2012-01-14, 04:02 PM

Every 3-4 minutes, not 15.

PoisonTaco

2012-01-15, 12:16 AM

Hmr85

2012-01-15, 10:26 AM

What if a ground based AMS isn't needed? Now hear me out.

Instead of capping bases, which in PS1 can be spread out across the map, we're going to be fighting over the whole continent. The continent is divided up by hexes and it's said that a base takes up around 7 hexes. So it sounds like the hexes themselves won't be all that big.

So what if each hex has a spawn point? If they're in close proximity it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that we'd be able to spawn inside our own hexes.

I don't know if I like that idea though. I hate to think that I'm running through the the forest and a group of guys just re spawn right behind or w/e and I end up getting a shotgun to the face. I want something to kill to prevent that.

Sure they could have certain areas as spawn locations but they would just get camped as soon as they where figured out. Meh, give us a vehicle to take out. I want a way to limit if not stop the re spawn.

You shouldn't just be spawning everywhere out in the middle of the field. It just doesn't make sense to me game wise.

Graywolves

2012-01-15, 10:47 AM

I just want my raider and juggernaut

Xyntech

2012-01-15, 12:13 PM

Every 3-4 minutes, not 15.

Did they change it? I thought it was longer. I almost never used the bloody thing anyways.

super pretendo

2012-01-15, 12:38 PM

A grounded AMS seems like it's probably a good idea for reasons mentioned. Maybe you could customize sunderer to fit this role?

Talek Krell

2012-01-15, 04:51 PM

Did they change it? I thought it was longer. I almost never used the bloody thing anyways.I think I remember them altering it once or twice.

Yetiee

2012-01-15, 05:03 PM

I think they should make the sunderer amphibious. It looks kinda like those duck boat tours in seattle.:p Make it go like 1/2 speed in water or 1/2 capacity or somthing to make it amphibious.

Johari

2012-01-15, 05:52 PM

From what I remember hearing the Sunderer is supposed to be more of a proper transport this time. Not only have we seen the pictures of the two (most likey customizable) turrets on the top I believe I heard Higby saying that passengers can fire out of the vehicle, or atleast that's what he wants.

Pretty sure this was said in one of the AGN Community Nights, probably the Novemember one. Give me a few to go through and see if I can find it.

Edit: Got it! Bandbus talk starts at 1:18:50 and Higby confirms at 1:19:10 that the occupants will be able to shoot out of gunports.

http://www.twitch.tv/agntv/b/300452152

Figment

2012-01-15, 06:37 PM

I think they should make the sunderer amphibious. It looks kinda like those duck boat tours in seattle.:p Make it go like 1/2 speed in water or 1/2 capacity or somthing to make it amphibious.

DUKW. ;)