News: Nanite Systems Sunderer [Archive]

Raymac

2012-01-17, 05:31 PM

So what does it offer that i cant just get from a galaxy? A gal no longer requires a specific base to get, so if there's a choice to drive along terrain and thru enemies slowly, or fly over all the terrain and enemies and all at a much faster rate and get a spawn point from it as well, im taking a gal everytime.

It needs to have something to set it apart. Easily doable tho. But it definately looks cool for sure. =)

Hoping for a variant with less passenger slots but more guns. =D

Like FastandFree said, Gals will be a big fat target, even more so than they were in PS1. Also, in the air, you don't have much cover from the terrain. So between the fighters and the AA it is risky. Driving a Bang Bus has its own risks too though. (AV, mines, tanks, etc)

So I'm curious to see how it work out. In PS1, for transporting troops, more often than not you would use a Gal. I forsee it will likely be similar in PS2, but perhaps these additional abilities for the Sunderer will make it more common. I'm excited to get more details because this article is more of a "Sunderer confirmed for PS2" Yeah, we knew, but thanks for the cool new pics.

SKYeXile

2012-01-17, 05:38 PM

That would be cool, I could see having 2 Sunderer's set up somewhere to hold a forward position, spawn and rearm area.

Yea well some people have the theory that we could spawn from bunkers or other fixed spawn points around the continents other than towers or bases, i agree its possible. But the AMS makes the game so more dynamic, if people are always attacking from a fixed location, they will funnel to the same location time and time again and the fights become the same old thing over and over. With a AMS where you can choose where you spawn, it widely opens up the avenues of attack for the attackers.

not to mention those loadstar / AMS encased with CE in PS1 1 WHERE AWESOME! i would have hoped to see the same in this, but with a dedicated engineer they could fortify the emplacement further, this way we could then see destructible environments.

Shogun

2012-01-17, 05:44 PM

i´m a little disappointed about the missing spawnpoit announcement, but the sunderer looks really badass!
wow is that thing BIG!

Raymac

2012-01-17, 06:00 PM

not to mention those loadstar / AMS encased with CE in PS1 1 WHERE AWESOME! i would have hoped to see the same in this, but with a dedicated engineer they could fortify the emplacement further, this way we could then see destructible environments.

Yeah, those ad hoc mobile mini-bases were great. It required teamwork to set up and they were extremely effective in helping on the battlefield. I actually enjoyed spending time hunting them down and calling out for OS's or sometimes trying to take them out with my reaver. Although, that always seemed to just stir up the hornet's nest more than anything, but it was a good way to pick a fight.

Since it was such a cool tactic that players created in PS1, I would have hoped to see something similar created for the players in PS2.

super pretendo

2012-01-17, 06:05 PM

Yeah, those ad hoc mobile mini-bases were great. It required teamwork to set up and they were extremely effective in helping on the battlefield. I actually enjoyed spending time hunting them down and calling out for OS's or sometimes trying to take them out with my reaver. Although, that always seemed to just stir up the hornet's nest more than anything, but it was a good way to pick a fight.

Since it was such a cool tactic that players created in PS1, I would have hoped to see something similar created for the players in PS2.

I agree, that sounds awesome, I always love making outpost bases in games like this that is sort of a defensible hardpoint.

NewSith

2012-01-17, 06:06 PM

Animation for looking up on the NC pic bothers me.

PoisonTaco

2012-01-17, 06:12 PM

I think each hex on the map has spawn points. With the new territory system they have instead of fighting over bases there will be more border skirmishes. Think about it, instead of one side pushing to a base, there would always be a front where people would be fighting along the border. If you die you can just respawn in your nearest hex.

So that's where the sunderer comes in. It will be for breaking through the border and getting behind enemy lines. This will be what you want your infantry in for when you conduct Blitzkreig in PS2.

NewSith

2012-01-17, 06:23 PM

So that's where the sunderer comes in. It will be for breaking through the border and getting behind enemy lines. This will be what you want your infantry in for when you conduct Blitzkreig in PS2.

Personally I'd like it to be very versatile. As in:

Ramming Vehicle
Command Vehicle
Radar Vehicle
Spawn Vehicle
Supply Vehicle
Repair Vehicle
Minesweep Vehicle
Droppod Vehicle [BF2142, anyone?]
ATV Spawner Vehicle

and so on...

It would be cool to see it able to transport and spawn ATVs. But I don't really see a point in a ground vehicle that should be able to transport ground vehicles (especially if the ones are faster than the vehicle), so just spawning ATVs is fine.

Lonehunter

2012-01-17, 06:23 PM

I can't wait to put some spinners on that baby, and a cow catcher

Hmr85

2012-01-17, 06:25 PM

I love the look of the Sunder but to be honest I am pretty disappointed they did not include a spawn option with it. I really feel like SOE is making a huge mistake leaving out a mobile ground base Spawn like the AMS. The ability the AMS gave to really project force anywhere on the battlefield was amazing and made for some great gameplay.

Now lets assume the continents are just as big as PS1. They are going to really limit the game play if they go the spawn from bunkers or tower route and it is going to suck hardcore. The idea of having to run every time I die from a bunker back at a base or a tower just to get to the action is meh. Because lets be honest some of those distances in between bases and towers were horrible in PS1 and if you did not have a vehicle or AMS anywhere in range of the action be prepared to hike or decon back to a base... and don't tell me oh well we have squad spawn or the galaxy. From what I understand squad spawn is gonna take awhile to get in the skill tree and is more than likely going to come with a cool down.

Not to mention you and I both know that flying blimp of a galaxy is not going to come anywhere close a base without getting shot down. So lets be realistic about it and be prepared to run a good distance if your on the front line and no where near a vehicle terminal.

/rant off. :evil:

Obviously I could be proven completely wrong come beta and this new spawn system is the best. I just have my doubts. Sorry for the thread de-rail.

PoisonTaco

2012-01-17, 06:36 PM

Yeah but that's what I'm getting at. If they removed the AMS then that means there's no need for it.

Nothing would suck more than running across the world to just die and have to do it all over again. Remember they want to get people to the action faster than in PS1. That means there has to be spawn points scattered around the map itself. Maybe you can capture small buildings that are spawn points if you're behind enemy lines?

If there's no AMS truck then they have another solution to getting people back into the fight.

Oty

2012-01-17, 06:36 PM

I love that design, can't wait to see it in true red and black colours! Just put some kind of flamethrower on that darling and my dreams are coming true. litterally had a PS dream and basicly saw this veicle, wanted it so bad and now they show it here! both scared and excited at the same time!! only thing that is missing is a flamethrower on top and then I know what I'll be driving on Auraxis :)

Tikuto

2012-01-17, 06:39 PM

dis go' be so AWESURRRME! :D

Raymac

2012-01-17, 06:41 PM

For those of you wanting to see the Sunderer in lame stupid ugly red and black...

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1822

Zenben

2012-01-17, 06:42 PM

Wow. I can't wait to run people (and tanks) over with that thing. Talk about messy. Also, is it just me, or does the NC version look significantly larger?

As far as lacking a spawn point goes, I say wait for beta. If it ends up sucking, I can't imagine the devs won't hear about it and fix it somehow.

TerminatorUK

2012-01-17, 06:45 PM

Looks awesome!

Big improvement over the original design and looks the part.

Description and role seem spot on..can't wait to see it in action!

I do agree a mobile base / spawn point would have been awesome but supplying health and ammo is pretty cool too.

Nobel

2012-01-17, 06:54 PM

Gentleman/ladies, lets hold off on the wishing before we understand the full scope of how spawning will work. For all we know the engineer will have the ability to construct a spawn point and make it a non moving spawn point, instead of a vehicle. Lets wait until we know all the details

Arkanakaz

2012-01-17, 06:55 PM

As others have said the Galaxy does seem to be offering a lot with airborne spawning and I wonder if the Sunderer will be able to compete for existence on the battlefield.

Until they reveal more about spawning its difficult to tell what sort of role the Sunderer will play and if it will simply be used for it’s ammo and healing abilities i.e. drive it to a location park it, and go off and do something else.

But in truth I love the Sunderer and the pictures look great.

SKYeXile

2012-01-17, 07:03 PM

Hmr85

2012-01-17, 07:11 PM

I would think so, who wants to spawn at some randoms galaxy who probably cant fly and drops you at some random terrible location or he just fly's into the mountainside.

I agree with you completely, on top of that you just can't hide that galaxy in a forest or behind rocks like you use to able to with the AMS. At least if you give the sunderer the option as a mobile spawn you can still do that. Because let me tell you I'm gonna spend the first couple months flying in my Reaver racking up kills because that galaxy is not gonna be able to hide nearly as effectively as a land based vehicle. I'm gonna be scanning the tree lines outside forests around bases and huge hills around the action. I guarantee you I am gonna rack up a good K/D ratio.

SKYeXile

2012-01-17, 07:16 PM

I agree with you completely, on top of that you just can't hide that galaxy in a forest or behind rocks like you use to able to with the AMS. At least if you give the sunderer the option as a mobile spawn you can still do that. Because let me tell you I'm gonna spend the first couple months flying in my Reaver racking up kills because that galaxy is not gonna be able to hide nearly as effectively as a land based vehicle. I'm gonna be scanning the tree lines outside forests around bases and huge hills around the action. I guarantee you I am gonna rack up a good K/D ratio.

yup, gonna be good times.

also at least with an AMS its cloaked it offers some protection, you know where you're spawning and if its a good spot, a galaxy it could be getting attacked by a fleet of fighters..who knows... a camera of where you're going to spawn would go along way.

FRIENDLYUNIT

2012-01-17, 07:30 PM

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about spawning. Isn't it already confirmed there will be a cert for squad spawning?

Honestly, one of my three fears about PS2 is that spawning in will be too easy and quick. (I've played too many games of battlefield bad company 2 where whole groups of people spawn in on someone while I'm standing 2 meters away from them... and they arent even a squad leader.)

none

2012-01-17, 07:35 PM

Put some DUBS on it!!

SKYeXile

2012-01-17, 07:47 PM

Erendil

2012-01-17, 08:00 PM

Also, is it just me, or does the NC version look significantly larger?

Nah, VS are just taller. It's an evolution thing.

We're also more successful, and a bigger hit w/ the ladies.

Lorgarn

2012-01-17, 08:07 PM

Instead of going into details, I'm just going to stick with saying: That looks so badass I can't even think straight..

I'm just going to... sleep it off.

SKYeXile

2012-01-17, 08:16 PM

Nah, VS are just taller. It's an evolution thing.

We're also more successful, and a bigger hit w/ the ladies.
Is that because we enjoy shopping so much and express our feelings? I'm not understanding

BlazingSun

2012-01-17, 08:30 PM

I can imagine a Sunderer pushing a Magrider down a cliff ... "TAKE THAT FOR HAVING NO GROUND CONTACT YOU BUM!"

But pushing a tank on tracks out of your way? :confused:

SKYeXile

2012-01-17, 08:37 PM

I can imagine a Sunderer pushing a Magrider down a cliff ... "TAKE THAT FOR HAVING NO GROUND CONTACT YOU BUM!"

But pushing a tank on tracks out of your way? :confused:

like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9-2xD2u6nsU#t=195s

i don't really see how its going to work either though, pushing people with physics in an MMO is going to lead to dodgy stuff happening.

also consider a what 30tonne? truck hitting a 40-60tonne tank side or even front on? i know what my bets on. unless the sunderer does weigh more? but i doubt it.

BorisBlade

2012-01-17, 08:37 PM

I can imagine a Sunderer pushing a Magrider down a cliff ... "TAKE THAT FOR HAVING NO GROUND CONTACT YOU BUM!"

But pushing a tank on tracks out of your way? :confused:

meh thats close enough to be plausible. And dont forget this is the same dev group putting a massive 150mm cannon on the equivalent of a blackhawk helicopter, ignoring the fact it would destroy the aircraft its mounted to when it fires. So it doesnt have to make sense even in the slightest to get in game. =P

Zenben

2012-01-17, 08:50 PM

meh thats close enough to be plausible. And dont forget this is the same dev group putting a massive 150mm cannon on the equivalent of a blackhawk helicopter, ignoring the fact it would destroy the aircraft its mounted to when it fires. So it doesnt have to make sense even in the slightest to get in game. =P

NANITES!

Oryon22

2012-01-17, 09:11 PM

Ferd F-Teenthousand

Hmr85

2012-01-17, 09:18 PM

Ferd F-Teenthousand

lol :rofl:

Graywolves

2012-01-17, 09:21 PM

Nah, VS are just taller. It's an evolution thing.

We're also more successful, and a bigger hit w/ the ladies.

Actually smaller things are arguably further along evolution than things that are bigger. Some feminists like to say because the female brain is smaller than the male brain but just as effective makes it further in evolution or we can look at technology and see how things are progressivley getitng smaller.

Either way none of that is how evolution actually works....

CutterJohn

2012-01-17, 09:25 PM

Actually smaller things are arguably further along evolution than things that are bigger. Some feminists like to say because the female brain is smaller than the male brain but just as effective makes it further in evolution or we can look at technology and see how things are progressivley getitng smaller.

Either way none of that is how evolution actually works....

Keep telling yourself that, shorty. :groovy:

Infektion

2012-01-17, 10:39 PM

Is this planetside? JeeZe, more like spawnside... Nearly everything and everyone could have a spawn near ability, it's pretty ridiculous...

Yetiee

2012-01-17, 10:45 PM

ROUND THE WAGONS.....i mean.....SUNDERERS!!!

I hope you could wall off entrances with sunderers.

Traak

2012-01-17, 11:16 PM

I want different engine sounds, at least. I would like turbodiesel for the TR, supercharged GM 6-71 diesel for the NC, and turbine whine for the VS. I still want to know my enemies by sound.

Atuday

2012-01-17, 11:30 PM

I like it. I love it even. Who here is ready for the blitzkrieg to begin. Fast moving tanks with faster moving transports in front to ram the enemy out of the way. Not to mention the nice thick armor to make it a rolling wall of death to any softies and a shield for the tanks that follow it. Well here's to hoping that's how it happens.

CutterJohn

2012-01-18, 01:08 AM

Is this planetside? JeeZe, more like spawnside... Nearly everything and everyone could have a spawn near ability, it's pretty ridiculous...

Or the ability to spawn on something/someone could require a piece of gear that competes for space in your arsenal with other, vital, pieces of gear, and would then be self limiting.

Just because you can't think of reasonable restrictions doesn't mean everyone else can't as well.

CplVars

2012-01-18, 01:17 AM

I can imagine a Sunderer pushing a Magrider down a cliff ... "TAKE THAT FOR HAVING NO GROUND CONTACT YOU BUM!"

But pushing a tank on tracks out of your way? :confused:

It'll be like driving vehicles into the side of a Vanny back in PS1.

*VROOOOM* *BAM* WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

blbeta

2012-01-18, 01:22 AM

Well I hope there is still the ability to spawn on/in other squads/groups. Like how it use to be nearest/tied AMS.

Sundy wise I am happy to see it. It sounds like it will be more useful. Not that it matters, I like to swim up stream anyway and find uses for the under used things in a game. My buddies and I loved the underestimated Deli in PS1... many things died to us because we didn't "seem" threatening.

Vash02

2012-01-18, 01:31 AM

Still failing to understand why they have taken out the AMS for PS2. What negative impact did it have on gameplay? none as far as I can tell.

CuddlyChud

2012-01-18, 01:40 AM

Still failing to understand why they have taken out the AMS for PS2. What negative impact did it have on gameplay? none as far as I can tell.

I don't think you should think of PS2 as Planetside 1 without the AMS. They might not have thought there was anything wrong with the AMS. It just might not fit into the game mechanics of this new game. I think its premature to cry about the lack of AMS.

Vancha

2012-01-18, 02:40 AM

I can't believe people are still using PS1 as context to complain about PS2. For speculation, fair enough...but to try and tell the people making the game that there should/shouldn't be X in PS2 because it did/didn't work in PS1? Stop it (this isn't just towards Vash).

Azren

2012-01-18, 02:49 AM

It sounds like a real fun vehicle to drive. At the moment, it seams this will be the first cert I will unlock.

Bridge fights will never be the same again :)

UlfStein

2012-01-18, 03:53 AM

First off, I would like to say, I love the idea of this sunderer, it looks like what I envisioned a sunderer would be, except, i think it should have some tracks on it. If its more massive than a tank, and can push tanks, i think the rear wheels in the least should be treads or something like that, but I lvoe the idea.

As for spawning though, the squad spawn kind of makes it an ams in a way. Like one way to exploit it would be to fill it up with 12 squad leaders and have them breech and unload on a location and the enemy having to deal with an unexpected massive outbreak of 108 poeple pod droping on that location, talk about breaking through an enemy line, and the fact that people can spawn on squad members if the leader is advanced enough effectively makes it a mobile spawn point as people could just keep spawning on the people that are already there. I think that this definitely makes it furfill its role as a line breaker, and make it a lovely target for the enemy. I just imagine seeing a dead locked battlezone where its an army camped out on a hill fighting a bunkered down enemy on a wall when suddenly a sunderer breaks through the line and starts rolling down the hill full speed toward the courtyard. As all the walled enemy starts to focus fire on the truck, the men on the hill start laying down suppressive fire, then seemly out of nowhere an out break of soldiers surges from the truck into the courtyard breaking the deadlock. Sounds like good times.

Frisby

2012-01-18, 05:09 AM

When you look at the description it seems that the sunderer does not carry a equipment terminal where you can also change your class/loadout but only a resupply unit (ammo+medical). That is something that really bothers me, we have not seen any vehicle or means (yet) that provides troops with a option to change their class/loadout during a fight other than on death/respawn or equipment terminals in structures (towers, bases).
With the restrictions connected to the class system I really feel the need for a mobile "equipment terminal" that provides troops with a frontline option for changing their class and gear.

LongBow

2012-01-18, 06:05 AM

The sundy as a spawn point is probably still in flux, so SOE is only commenting on things they are sure will be in the launch build at this time.

Still that thing looks bad ass and its nice to see evidence that mass/momentum is being implemented on vehicles.

Shogun

2012-01-18, 07:03 AM

oh how i wish higby would reveal some more details about the spawning system in general!

are there fixed spawnpoints in every hex?
will the gal spawn troops in the air?
are there any other mobile spawnpoints like sunderermods or engineer-deployables
will drop pods be limited to outside soi like in ps1? (rendering the spawn on leader useless)

as long as we don´t know anything about spawning, we keep comparing to ps1. and ps1 without ams would have sucked hard.
the devs want to get us into battle faster, but we really want to know if they will sacrifice the most important tactical aspect of ps1 in order to do this!
if we just can spawn anywhere near the battle because the map is full of spawnpoints, there really is no use for an ams like vehicle. but this would also mean less tactical play and loss of fun for all the supporters out there who loved to risk their life to set up a frontline base of operation for their team. that´s a big reduction of things to do for dedicated support players like me.

Graywolves

2012-01-18, 08:39 AM

I like the idea of them having different engines depending on what empire they are from.

As a TR I would love to hear the power in my engines and when fighting NC I want to see black smoke give away their location because they use handmedowns.

EASyEightyEight

2012-01-18, 10:18 AM

There's a lot we still don't know to be bringing out the torches and pitchforks.

What we do know:

-Galaxies will act as spawn points.
-Squads can periodically spawn on a leader with the training in orbital reinforcements. There IS a cooldown. It will only work outdoors.
-Bases and towers obviously should feature spawn points.

What we don't know (at least for absolutely certain)
-(All) Towers are mobile, and can be relocated.
-Sunderer may be later granted the option to act as a spawn point.
-Engineers may set up orbital relays for in field spawning, or cloaking fields to conceal parked Galaxies.
-If bunkers have spawn capabilities.
-The quantity and distance of bunkers from key locations such as bases and towers.
-If bases are taken structure by structure, with various structures offering spawn points. Not expecting every base to have a single spawn room myself.

Simply put, we're comparing PS1 to PS2, without actually knowing what's being done about ground spawning in PS2. They have to know making the Galaxy, Sunderer, and quad the only quick means for foot mobiles to get into battle is unreliable and for the latter 2 it's own kind of time consuming.

Aaron

2012-01-18, 10:36 AM

Looks SWEET!

Coreldan

2012-01-18, 11:00 AM

Ok, so AMS is pretty much confirmed to be out of that thing for now at least. Looks massive and amazing. Gonna be pushing all your MBT nubbins around! :D

Hmr85

2012-01-18, 01:31 PM

Ok, so AMS is pretty much confirmed to be out of that thing for now at least. Looks massive and amazing. Gonna be pushing all your MBT nubbins around! :D

Any TR or VS thinking that will be meeting a fiery demise after my 150mm cannon gets through with them.

Ceska

2012-01-18, 02:05 PM

Looks like a boosted version of the original concept :
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/main/psnext/screenshots/20120117_4f15e97db8711.jpg

http://www.planetside-universe.com/images/screenshots/Commom_Deliverer_final.jpg

Figment

2012-01-18, 03:41 PM

Ceska... That's not a Sunderer.

But yes, the Deliverer DNA is in there a bit.

Dir

2012-01-18, 03:44 PM

Still failing to understand why they have taken out the AMS for PS2. What negative impact did it have on gameplay? none as far as I can tell.

I too find this very very disturbing. One trend that seems to be all the rage are game developers copying and capitalizing on the competition's features and styles and re-boxing them to sell us someone's tired idea of what “fun” is. I don't blame the developers...I blame their bosses and the shareholders who have a complete lack of understanding outside of short presentations that might as well be given in Klingon. All this does is spawn clone after clone and bores the be-Jesus out of potential fans hoping that the other guy will finally make something better and unique. It keeps player-bases fragmented and fluid...maybe that's what they want? No one ever sees the big successes coming...they are a complete surprise and never planned for..but man are they ever duplicated and re-branded in every detail. It's become a throw away world whether it be the furnace in your house, dishwasher or the TV in your living room...all compliments of the lowest bidder in china...nothing made to last..everything made for a service contract. For sequels in the entertainment industry it wipes out everything that makes their own title unique and certain aspects distinctive from the competition aside from naturally occurring increases to scale and eye candy. Two things that have been severely crippled by the resurgence of very profitable gaming consoles. The thing is scale and eye candy don't retain paying customers 9 years after the fact as both aspects have long since vanished in PS1. Yet the game play keeps me and more than a few others coming back to Planetside paying 50 cents a day 3 hours a day just about every day of the week in anticipation of PS2. Isn't that enough? A success is a success...don't mess with it...remove the things that really irritate but don't mess with it.

There are certain key elements that make PS1 retain a paying loyal fan-base that expects to see the return of things like the AMS and ANT only to hear rumours, if not actual fact, that both have been dropped? For what reason? Not one based on speculation or some rehearsed shallow meaningless answer ...how will leaving these two things in the game detrimentally effect the game? Were polls on the AMS even conducted? I mean...no more sanctuary? I can understand removing things about the sanctuary, like the hart, car advertisements, that really annoyed people but to completely cut it out? To remove a completely hidden staging area reserved for our brothers in arms where weapons are stored/traded and team players meet and then out of no where blast into battle...hell most screen-shots from back in the day were taken in the sanc...it's what made the game epic...yet another unique feature ripped out of the game? Why? How did this harm the game? How will it harm the game if it returns?

From my own memory since the game was first released the Sunderer was probably the most unused vehicle in the game until it got a buff a few years back. In my own memory never has a game been more perfectly updated to the players expectations. It introduced elements to the game that complemented the game so completely it felt like a natural evolution...yet it didn't take anything out of the game. The ability to blow a rechargeable EMP to neutralize CE? smash right through shields and take out kneecaps with razor sharp cow catchers re-invented the vehicle and makes it the only vehicle I drive everyday. Now I see it has returned but not as it is today but as it was nearly 10 years ago? I'm a bit confused. I can only hope that we have the option to buff our Jugs to their current/former glory but even more so I hope the developers at least leave the option open to bring back things like the AMS and ANT...two “game changers” that continue to change the course of each and every battle that occurs every hour of every day like no other element except maybe population. I mean...battery trucks? Cloakable mobile spawn points? It's genius and I really can't see the need to remove something from a game that has done so well for so long.

I'm hoping and praying the Sundy get's some teeth because I'm really going to miss running you guys over and even more so I'm really really going to miss AMS hunting with my EMP.

DirArtillerySupport

Vancha

2012-01-18, 04:41 PM

Figment

2012-01-18, 04:58 PM

Again, you need to stop trying to apply Planetside logic to Planetside 2. This is a new game. The AMS and ANT were not dropped. They never existed.

The question is, how would adding an AMS/ANT/Sanctuary be beneficial to Planetside 2? Other than their mere existence, I'm not sure you could give a single answer that didn't necessarily make an assumption about Planetside 2 (and what are assumptions? That's right. The mother of all fuck-ups.)

There's no reason to believe any of the things you talked about would have any relevance to Planetside 2 until we've gotten to play it.

Nor is there any reason to assume the 'changes' or rather the... "not adding"-decision is a good thing. So if people want to speculate based on information and experience they have, combining not just experience from PS1 (which OF COURSE will be used!) with experience from other games such as CoD and BF series, they sure as hell can and most user scenarios will be easily created.

Which is also why most people make assumptions about what we will see in PS2 instead, to fill in the blanks and hypothesize from there.

And why do you keep saying you can't compare? You sure as hell can compare! You know the reasoning of a player in general. This is not PS1 specific. Player, no, human behaviour, is very easy to extrapolate when confronted with a similar situation and context. Change game context a little, player behaviour will change only a little, but will still be largely instinctive. If people for instance killwhore in EVE, they will also killwhore in PlanetSide 2 if given the opportunity. As they would in World of Tanks, SWG, PS1, CoD MW or BF games. So if one type of weapon kills better than another, that particular weapon will be used en mass.

If you give a group of PS players (whether 1 or 2) semi-numerically limited tanks to players with the driver controlling the gun, they WILL pull as many vehicles as possible, simply because hitpoints + firepower is beaten by two times hitpoints and similar firepower. You don't need to play beta for such things, you need basic algebra.

Raymac

2012-01-18, 05:09 PM

Let's not pretend that everyone and their mom jumped at the chance to volunteer for ANT runs. They are boring and tedious especially when most people want to pew pew. Sometimes you get the rare occasion where you have to make an ANT run for a base that is under attack which added some suspense, but most of the time you were filling up the tank on a quiet base.

Also, we have so little information on the spawning for PS2, like where can we spawn, how does the Gal spawning work, etc. that we may see why the AMS is no longer needed. And you know what guys, after all that happens, and we still see a need for the AMS, I bet you anything that the devs would easily consider adding it later just like they've said for a number of other things.

SKYeXile

2012-01-18, 05:13 PM

Knocky

2012-01-18, 05:37 PM

We know that they CAN add spawning to the Sundy.....beta will determine if we really need it.

Dir

2012-01-18, 05:58 PM

Again, you need to stop trying to apply Planetside logic to Planetside 2. This is a new game. The AMS and ANT were not dropped. They never existed.

The question is, how would adding an AMS/ANT/Sanctuary be beneficial to Planetside 2? Other than their mere existence, I'm not sure you could give a single answer that didn't necessarily make an assumption about Planetside 2 (and what are assumptions? That's right. The mother of all fuck-ups.)

There's no reason to believe any of the things you talked about would have any relevance to Planetside 2 until we've gotten to play it.

If we knew the answer to that question then where is this faint nasty dark empty feeling coming from in the pit of my stomach telling me to worry?

There's also no reason to believe that throwing in every piece of equipment in both form and function while simply updating the engine with both effects and scale wouldn't make it a smash hit. It really doesn't take much to impress people and draw them in now days because really...there's nothing out there...it's about keeping them. If I had to put money on something I'd put my money on that recipe rather than gambling on re-inventing the wheel using old tired ideas taken directly from other successful games and hoping they gell with the new and improved “PS2 logic”.

My single answer is initially change nothing...gamble nothing. Add and develop things later. Do so on a “test continent” call it a special weapons and technology area...like an oshur that has to be fought over and earned. Give the players modding tools to develop these aspects of the game and submit them. If things work there.. and everyone likes it great...vote it in...poll it at every login...migrate it into the rest of the game. If it breaks the game by all means change it or let it fade away. Right now the way I see it nothing is broken except the graphics engine and number of players. Fix one the other repairs itself. Give us the tools and we'll add to the game ourselves just like we already do with mods like Project Reality and the Arma series.

Keep in mind this coming from a player that doesn't carry any direct fire weapons...I just drive my truck and support the guys that do. Don't know much about fighting just sitting back listening and watching...and it was never about that actual ant run...it was about being on the edge of your seat wondering if the guy making the run was going to make it through and supporting him...but I guess that was PS1 logic.

DirArtillerySupport

Raymac

2012-01-18, 06:08 PM

Dir, newsflash for ya. Planetside 1 is dead. It effectively died after about 4 years and it started dying well before that. All that's left now is a rotting carcass of a single server that has a smaller population than Antartica in wintertime.

Simply remaking the game exactly the same, even with better coding, would be risky. We all know the old saying "Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

It just makes sense, both logic sense and business sense, to design the game from scratch using the knowledge from PS1 combined with the bells and whistles people expect from modern AAA shooters. You know, the basic pitch they gave when the game was first announced.

There's no way to prove this, but I'd bet good money that the Planetside 2 they are making now will be a much bigger success than the Planetside: Next simple reskin they originally planned would have been.

Figment

2012-01-18, 06:43 PM

So Raymec, now you are saying to "use knowledge of PS1" (which is in direct disagreement with Vancha).

But apparently this is dev exclusive experience and knowledge, even if most of these devs spend most their time on Everquest, while one particular other did BR40 and Reaver armour buffs, correct?

So what makes some of you think we can't extrapolate under particular, reasonable assumptions? Every time devs share new PS2 information, we can adjust views. Warn and foresee problems. If assumptions are not valid, fine. No harm done. IF THEY ARE, devs might become aware of problems early, BEFORE we get to play something they have to fix right away and lose face on and disappoint players with.

How is this a bad thing?

Raymac

2012-01-18, 07:07 PM

Figment, what did I say? Here let me quote it for ya because you seemed to just cherry pick.

It just makes sense, both logic sense and business sense, to design the game from scratch using the knowledge from PS1 combined with the bells and whistles people expect from modern AAA shooters.

Also, I think Higby and T-Ray might disagree with your myth that the devs working on the game mostly just worked on Everquest.

But you are right in that there is nothing wrong with speculating. That's what we have to do at this point while we wait for more details to solidify. I say we speculate our asses off. We won't get another chance at it, because beta is coming soon.

Figment

2012-01-18, 08:09 PM

I was referring to Vancha, but you also showed a similar attitude of "play first, ask questions later" and "don't compare to past experience, play the new game first". See driver/gunner thread.

Undoubtedly devs played a bit, but I can't tell how much. I can tell it is not as much nor as consistent as some of us though. I'm sure they love the game and factions and they feel all these cool things they add are all great and they're very excited. Great. Doesn't mean they won't be making mistakes based on not having certain specific insights in particular things. Or they simply have completely different ideas, which is fair enough.

At least Higby has good taste in empire so he did learn something. ;)

Look, I'm not saying they're stupid (not at all), but I am saying I can't see them having been, for instance, long term cont commanders based purely on on-cont sanctuaries. I also don't think they made all the right calls in vehicle versatility by focusing on customization (code) rather than frames (hardware). Personally I feel this is done to save time, rather than create the optimal gameplay. Anybody would make mistakes obviously, but there also - to me - seems to be too much loaning of game mechanics I don't see working in a sandbox environment like PS1. BF3 vehicle mechanics work in BF3 because there's only a couple vehicles per 64 players, that's the context, that makes gunners worthwhile. In PS1/2, that context is that everyone can have tons of vehicles (even if somehow limited by regenerating resources in PS2). You don't have as much choice and resources to work with after all in minor games. You don't NEED the same freedom in those games, because you won't be faced with so many different situations you have to prepare for. But it means you cannot expect these same mechanics to work in neither PS1 or 2.

If we look at lessons from the past, history repeated itself a lot. BFRs were added without considering a multitude of them, a lesson which could have been learned from Command & Conquer (numerical limit on super weapons/units on a map). In PS1 you often saw units being added without considering any alternate abuse user scenarios. Phantasms with 12mm? Been warned for extensively on forums, implemented. People like Vancha said "just wait till it is in game first, then critique". Public outrage ensued and distrust in dev ability increased, could have been easily avoided.

I also know Voidrage and Brewko played, or at least participated and observed as GMs. But I can't say I've ever been impressed with their 'expertise' on playtesting, what players like, etc. From Brewko, sorry, the guy is undoubtedly a nice guy in reality, but I can't respect a lot of his actions regarding game changes. I can't respect him starting home cont or rabbit events at times when that would obviously be screwing over empires and then not understanding what all the fuss was about.

How about him starting a deso event, half a minute before NC would lock it and with it capture Oshur with the last Jamshid LLU, after a three hour battle? I mean if you can't even comprehend that is going to upset a whole empire of players (and yes, it still irks me), I don't know how one can be expected to be a proper dev.

Voidrage tested ES pistols and virals by giving all empires tanks to play with in an open space environment like Desolation with one base each. "Because then every empire was equal". Playtesting is not an event! It is about trying to break and abuse the game and use the items under test in very specific scenarios! If you try to balance a HA weapon, you let VS assault bases held by NC or TR. You let them HOLD bases against NC and TR. You should not go outside in one of the most open continents and farm with aircraft for 90% of the match in the middle of the field where no Lasher is logically being used!

And that sort of "balance tests", despite of protests and advice, happened for the full period of the game. I'm sorry, but if you can't even setup a playtest under controlled conditions, why should I trust the word of someone (Brewko) I know upset game balance before in a completely untested and arbitrary way? (Reaver armour buff)

I won't. I'll speculate and focus on worst case scenarios. Because if we won't, who will?

nathanebht

2012-01-18, 08:10 PM

EASyEightyEight

2012-01-18, 08:26 PM

We also now know that troops and vehicles will carry limited ammo. Don't think this question was answered until today.

Good point. I guess that simply slipped my mind because I pretty much expected it. Nice catch ;)

Figment

2012-01-18, 08:29 PM

PS: note that if resource assignment per player works how I think it will, then they will probably replace vehicle timers completely as a form of limitation. It could be timers will work as an extra temporary limitation, but not as the main acquisition limit as they do now.

Dir

2012-01-18, 08:34 PM

Dir, newsflash for ya. Planetside 1 is dead. It effectively died after about 4 years and it started dying well before that. All that's left now is a rotting carcass of a single server that has a smaller population than Antartica in wintertime.

Well guys I'm out...going to go play my dead or dying Planetside for the next 3 hours...don't know why I do it but I do it. I was only ever able to play on one server at a time anyhow.

Dir

Raka Maru

2012-01-19, 12:29 AM

Nah, VS are just taller. It's an evolution thing.

We're also more successful, and a bigger hit w/ the ladies.

Nah, it's the high heels that make VS taller...

sylphaen

2012-01-19, 01:09 AM

I like your posts, Fig.

Edit: FYI, for their depth, thoughtfulness and the time you give to us in writing them. Concerning the ideas, I also do agree in this case as you make valid points (imo).

Death2All

2012-01-19, 01:21 AM

I love the look. Looks life a really beefy truck than a big ass bus like it was in PS1.

I wonder if it still has it's EMP ability?

SKYeXile

2012-01-19, 01:30 AM

I love the look. Looks life a really beefy truck than a big ass bus like it was in PS1.

I wonder if it still has it's EMP ability?

lets hope to get that you need to sell your soul.

Raymac

2012-01-19, 02:29 AM

Well guys I'm out...going to go play my dead or dying Planetside for the next 3 hours...don't know why I do it but I do it. I was only ever able to play on one server at a time anyhow.

Dir

I don't want to get too far out on a tangent, but are you suggesting that Planetside is even remotely close to what it was back in '03? The game is a ghost town compared to what it was.

It's why I'm so excited for the sequel. Combining even larger numbers with the amazing graphics like this new badass bang bus is going to be great.

SKYeXile

2012-01-19, 03:03 AM

I don't want to get too far out on a tangent, but are you suggesting that Planetside is even remotely close to what it was back in '03? The game is a ghost town compared to what it was.

It's why I'm so excited for the sequel. Combining even larger numbers with the amazing graphics like this new badass bang bus is going to be great.

The games a dinosaur, it should be put in a museum for people to marvel and remember it for what it was, not to touch and feel what it is like now.

Vancha

2012-01-19, 03:17 AM

Oh boy, this could be a long one...

Nor is there any reason to assume the 'changes' or rather the... "not adding"-decision is a good thing.
That's also correct, but it's not the default position. The question is still "Why should they add this?"...Especially since no one's played the game. You can't give reasons for anything not to be added to a game that no one's played, but that's not a reason to add it (I shouldn't need to explain the logic behind that).

So if people want to speculate based on information and experience they have, combining not just experience from PS1 (which OF COURSE will be used!) with experience from other games such as CoD and BF series, they sure as hell can and most user scenarios will be easily created.

Which is also why most people make assumptions about what we will see in PS2 instead, to fill in the blanks and hypothesize from there.
Speculation is fine, judgement is not.

And why do you keep saying you can't compare? You sure as hell can compare! You know the reasoning of a player in general. This is not PS1 specific. Player, no, human behaviour, is very easy to extrapolate when confronted with a similar situation and context. Change game context a little, player behaviour will change only a little, but will still be largely instinctive. If people for instance killwhore in EVE, they will also killwhore in PlanetSide 2 if given the opportunity. As they would in World of Tanks, SWG, PS1, CoD MW or BF games. So if one type of weapon kills better than another, that particular weapon will be used en mass.
Again, comparison is fine, judgement is not. Being able to say players will use the most powerful weapon if their only concern is killwhoring is a far cry from telling the PS2 devs that they should put an AMS in their game based on your experience in Planetside, when we have no idea whether an AMS has any place in Planetside 2.

If you give a group of PS players (whether 1 or 2) semi-numerically limited tanks to players with the driver controlling the gun, they WILL pull as many vehicles as possible, simply because hitpoints + firepower is beaten by two times hitpoints and similar firepower. You don't need to play beta for such things, you need basic algebra.
We're talking about the inclusion of things that assume a particular mixture of gameplay, mechanics and scenarios that we don't know exist, not whether vehicles should have gunners or not. I'll grant you, the gunner issue is something far easier to speculate on, but since we still have no idea about the resource system in Planetside 2, we don't know that an empire will even be able to pull as many vehicles as in Planetside (See? Speculation, not judgement).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
People like Vancha said "just wait till it is in game first, then critique". Public outrage ensued and distrust in dev ability increased, could have been easily avoided.
No. You will not speak for me.

There is a difference between telling people to wait until they've played a game to make a judgement on it and telling people to wait until a new gameplay element has been included to decide they don't like it. Again, I assume (uh oh?!) that I don't need to explain why someone is far more qualified to critique a potential element in a game they've played than critique the lack of an element in a game they haven't.

SKYeXile

2012-01-19, 03:29 AM

Again, comparison is fine, judgement is not. Being able to say players will use the most powerful weapon if their only concern is killwhoring is a far cry from telling the PS2 devs that they should put an AMS in their game based on your experience in Planetside, when we have no idea whether an AMS has any place in Planetside 2.

Having a mobile and placeable spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy has a place in any game thats pvp orientated, its vital in creating dynamic and ever-changing battles. Without it players would simply always be advancing along the same paths to the same locations.

Vancha

2012-01-19, 03:37 AM

Alright, lets have a second post for Dir.

If we knew the answer to that question then where is this faint nasty dark empty feeling coming from in the pit of my stomach telling me to worry?
Are you sure you aren't just bloated?

I think you're just arriving late on the acceptance train. We were all worried by anything and everything that was different to Planetside back in July/August, but then we realized Planetside 2 was going to be a different game because it had to be.

There's also no reason to believe that throwing in every piece of equipment in both form and function while simply updating the engine with both effects and scale wouldn't make it a smash hit. It really doesn't take much to impress people and draw them in now days because really...there's nothing out there...it's about keeping them. If I had to put money on something I'd put my money on that recipe rather than gambling on re-inventing the wheel using old tired ideas taken directly from other successful games and hoping they gell with the new and improved “PS2 logic”.

My single answer is initially change nothing...gamble nothing. Add and develop things later. Do so on a “test continent” call it a special weapons and technology area...like an oshur that has to be fought over and earned. Give the players modding tools to develop these aspects of the game and submit them. If things work there.. and everyone likes it great...vote it in...poll it at every login...migrate it into the rest of the game. If it breaks the game by all means change it or let it fade away. Right now the way I see it nothing is broken except the graphics engine and number of players. Fix one the other repairs itself. Give us the tools and we'll add to the game ourselves just like we already do with mods like Project Reality and the Arma series.
Okay, yeah. I definitely think you're where most of us were about six months ago. The fact is, those of us who loved Planetside and played it long term were a minority. Even now when there's free time given away, I see a bunch of players return and then leave again before their time is up, because it's the same experience as it's always been and it's tired. A straight-up remake of Planetside would probably be successful...initially...But then people would leave. Planetside didn't have enough longevity for most people, which is why when Planetside 2 was announced the comment sections of the sites that mentioned it were full of "Oh yeah, I remember playing that game for a while, it rocked", from people who'd played it, but hadn't kept playing it.

And yes, things were most certainly broken in Planetside. Those of us that loved the game could look past them, but I'm having trouble thinking of a single aspect of the game that didn't have visible flaws except possibly tanks? My beloved sniping was considered one of the more balanced things in the game and even for that I could name flaws.

Keep in mind this coming from a player that doesn't carry any direct fire weapons...I just drive my truck and support the guys that do. Don't know much about fighting just sitting back listening and watching...and it was never about that actual ant run...it was about being on the edge of your seat wondering if the guy making the run was going to make it through and supporting him...but I guess that was PS1 logic.
That's also selective memory. I think it's "The 1%" article on Rock Paper Shotgun that explains the vast amounts of tedium that would be between those magical moments that we'll forever remember, which is another reason Planetside had trouble retaining it's player-base. Everyone looks back at it fondly, but when you're actually playing it, there's a lot of drudgery too.

Redshift

2012-01-19, 03:39 AM

i'd like to see a deployable bubbleshield that lasts 10 secs or so, so you can ram a back door and be safe from enemy vehicles while breaching it

SKYeXile

2012-01-19, 03:50 AM

i'd like to see a deployable bubbleshield that lasts 10 secs or so, so you can ram a back door and be safe from enemy vehicles while breaching it

With talk like that you should apply for Future Crew. I would have preferred it if you penetrated the backdoor though and somehow squeezed the term bang bus somewhere in there.

Vancha

2012-01-19, 03:52 AM

Having a mobile and placeable spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy has a place in any game thats pvp orientated, its vital in creating dynamic and ever-changing battles. Without it players would simply always be advancing along the same paths to the same locations.
Indeed, having a mobile and place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy does have a place in any game that's PvP oriented, but I wasn't saying we don't know whether just any mobile and place-able spawn points that can be destroyed by an enemy has a place in the game, I was saying we don't know whether the "AMS"-type of mobile and place-able spawn point that be can destroyed by an enemy has a place in the game, which is just one particular kind of place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy.

Unless of course, you're saying that every conceivable kind of mobile and place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy necessarily has a place in the game, in which case I would have to disagree.

SKYeXile

2012-01-19, 03:54 AM

Indeed, having a mobile and place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy does have a place in any game that's PvP oriented, but I wasn't saying we don't know whether just any mobile and place-able spawn points that can be destroyed by an enemy has a place in the game, I was saying we don't know whether the "AMS"-type of mobile and place-able spawn point that be can destroyed by an enemy has a place in the game, which is just one particular kind of place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy.

Unless of course, you're saying that every conceivable kind of mobile and place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy necessarily has a place in the game, in which case I would have to disagree.

err...the first one...i think.

Vancha

2012-01-19, 04:10 AM

Then we're agreed.

ringring

2012-01-19, 06:37 AM

Coreldan

2012-01-19, 07:08 AM

I am not sure I understand the point of a resupply truck that doesn't have a respawns facility.

Is it for armour where it is deployed behind the lines that the tanks can retreat to, similar to the loadstar reload capability?

Yea, I suppose that could work? But, grunts in a Courtyard who need a reload but haven't died are few. Usually they would die, respawn at a different deployable, e.g. Gal.

These thoughts also popped in my mind. In PS I very rarely ran out of ammo before I had died. As for mobile resupply in other games, in APB it's almost mandatory, so I guess the ammo amounts you can carry could change?

Or then just being able to change your class/loadout on the fly will be attractive enough.

But that's what beta is for, it is not set in stone that the Sundy wont get AMS-capabilities as well if we QQ for it hard enough :D

Knocky

2012-01-19, 07:12 AM

If Gals end up being the only mobile spawn point, they are going to have an even shorter lifespan than they already have in PS.

Princess Frosty

2012-01-19, 09:54 AM

I like how the Sunderer is stronger than before, it used to be a weak troop transport, now it's like "WE'RE GOING IN BOYS!" -BROOOSH!- and then everyone piles out completley surrounded by enemies after ramming a tank and pushing deep into enemy position.

hehehe, yeah that's going to be fun, ram raiding base entrances and smashing through, reverse up to the front door and use it as large portable cover while you hack and scurry inside. Really looking forward to using this.

polywomple

2012-01-19, 02:06 PM

I can foresee some pretty exciting Sundy raids, bashing through the enemy defenses. I remember leading triple Gal drops to towers in PS1. soooo fun

with all these updates i'm totally becoming an engi/pilot/driver

Figment

2012-01-19, 02:52 PM

Vancha

2012-01-19, 04:10 PM

Vancha, if you can speculate, then you can judge situations under these certain conditions originating from speculations.
Sorry, that combination of words in that order makes my brain hurt. "Under these certain conditions"...Under what certain conditions?

Can you give me an example?

Speculation followed by judgement is easy to do, verification of judgements can be done in beta as well. You act as if any speculation will at all times be way off the mark as you claim judgements are impossible. I don't agree, at all.
Speculation followed by valid judgement however, is just plain luck.

I have to ask, is English your first language? Your wording is so confusing.

"I act as if speculation will at all times be way off the mark as I claim judgements are impossible." Do I act, or do I claim? How does claiming judgements are impossible imply speculation will at all times be way off the mark? Where did I claim judgements are impossible?

What I would say is that a valid judgement based off speculation could only be the result of luck, since speculation requires ignorance and a valid judgement that isn't the result of luck requires a grasp of all the facts.

For example, speculation lead people to make an invalid judgement about the AMS (that it should exist in Planetside 2), due to their ignorance about the Galaxy and it's new role as a "mobile and place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy".

Figment

2012-01-19, 04:52 PM

Under the speculative conditions of course.

Meaning, assuming A is right, then you can judge a system for assumption A as context.

EDIT: Actually. People like me already assumed the Galaxy would be a ground based spawn point (as we already KNEW it would act as spawn, just not how), as we used speculation to decide that airborne it'd be annoying, OP in certain scenarios, yet not very proficient for a normal base fight.

But hey, you missed out on that?

nomotog

2012-01-19, 05:01 PM

It would be neat if you could deploy the sunderer in bunker mode where it can't move and can't be moved. That way you could use them to wall off pathways and set bunkers and check points. Though that might defeat the whole point of the it being a line breaker in the first place.

CuddlyChud

2012-01-19, 05:51 PM

Vancha, if you can speculate, then you can judge situations under these certain conditions originating from speculations.

Speculation followed by judgement is easy to do, verification of judgements can be done in beta as well. You act as if any speculation will at all times be way off the mark as you claim judgements are impossible. I don't agree, at all.

I speculate that PS2 could suck, therefore I judge that PS2 will suck, and so there's no reason to keep following it. Speculation is fine, but making concrete judgement based on hypothetical situations seem a bit excessive.

Figment

2012-01-19, 07:29 PM

I speculate that PS2 could suck, therefore I judge that PS2 will suck, and so there's no reason to keep following it. Speculation is fine, but making concrete judgement based on hypothetical situations seem a bit excessive.

>____________>

What kind of argument is that? It's a bit of an exageration compared to what we're talking about (educated guesses + experience > random qualifications), isn't it?

Although theoretically, if the assumption is that the game could suck and the judgement is "That would suck" and upon beta it turns out the assumption is correct... Then the game WOULD suck.

Vancha and you both don't seem to understand that a judgement of a speculation is not a judgement of the game, but a judgement of a specific consideration, within a specific context and under specific circumstances. Why is such a judgement needed? To make recommendations, user scenarios and other such things.

And you know what? Developers and designers, even engineers do this sort of thing before they write code, or built something. Or are you saying they just randomly develop things and only once they're done judge if it was anywhere near correct? Tweaking yes, but value judgements are made after brainstorming to reduce resource waste as much as possible. You want to make decisions as early as possible in the design process, which means judging. That you two apparently claim you can't develop ideas into probable user scenarios (even if they are slightly off) on which you can provide a value judgement, and ignore as well that very logical derivations and extrapolations can easily be made that's your business, but don't go about and tell people what they can't. Especially when you consider that when more information is known a hypothesis can be tested and tweaked as well. Beta is the best form of verification, but far from the only one!

Sorry Chud, but what a load of bull.

CuddlyChud

2012-01-19, 08:31 PM

My point is that you're creating a framework in your mind, within which you apply these hypotheticals, that aren't grounded in any sort of reality. None of us know anything about the gameplay mechanics of PS2 other than the most superficial parts. Therefore, it seems a bit excessive to begin critiquing items based on our vague and out of context knowledge of those items. It'd be like designing a building without knowing anything about physics. Sure, you could draw something up, but it would probably be non-functional and pointless. You're guesses can't possibly be that educated unless your secretly a Dev.

Vancha

2012-01-20, 03:19 AM

Under the speculative conditions of course.

Meaning, assuming A is right, then you can judge a system for assumption A as context.
Again, what are assumptions?

Judging a system based on speculation is likely going to be a bad judgement. You still haven't explained how a valid judgement can be made on a system by speculation.

EDIT: Actually. People like me already assumed the Galaxy would be a ground based spawn point (as we already KNEW it would act as spawn, just not how), as we used speculation to decide that airborne it'd be annoying, OP in certain scenarios, yet not very proficient for a normal base fight.

But hey, you missed out on that?
What did I miss out on? I feel no worse off for not having spent time throwing out guesses about the plane in a game. As of now, we are at the exact same position in regards to our knowledge of the Galaxy. Are you any better off for all the premature judgements you made?

"I act as if speculation will at all times be way off the mark as I claim judgements are impossible." Do I act, or do I claim? How does claiming judgements are impossible imply speculation will at all times be way off the mark? Where did I claim judgements are impossible?
Hey, could you answer this? Yet again you spoke for me and yet again you misrepresented me. In a previous post, I nearly claimed that you had personally argued for the inclusion of the AMS in Planetside 2, but I checked that that was correct and it wasn't, so I changed my post to avoid lying. You could at least extend the same courtesy.

Vancha and you both don't seem to understand that a judgement of a speculation is not a judgement of the game, but a judgement of a specific consideration, within a specific context and under specific circumstances. Why is such a judgement needed? To make recommendations, user scenarios and other such things.
Clearly that isn't what we're talking about and you know it. Extrapolating hypothetical conclusions based on speculation is fine, but people are going beyond that. Some people were quite clearly bothered by the lack of AMS', for example.

Figment

2012-01-20, 05:03 AM

Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it.

And yes, the lack of AMS is something I'm concerned with. Why? Because I KNOW how big a Galaxy is and I KNOW how hard it is to get something that big into a subtle, safe position in close proximity to a potential of thousands of hostile players. A Galaxy has no low profile and this is why I think it is unsuited.

It is not that hard to figure out that just the Galaxy is going to be questionable in comparison to a cloakable (once in place), low profile vehicle that can more easily stay out of view during its approach: ground vehicles have one big advantage in that respect and it's something that is often overlooked. I predict the Galaxy to be a pretty poor spawn vehicle.

In fact, I very much doubt its guns are going to be used much and when they are often too late (1. bad firing angles for at least half the weapons (facing wrong direction due to symetrical layout) 2. experience with people suggests they'll want to move off instead of repair and defend: can't move along with fight, while people want to fight constantly - AMSes were also deserted very fast after spawning, same will happen with Galaxy although the fight will be drawn to it more quickly 3. better weapon alternatives where you are not the main target 4. similar reasons to why Field Turrets weren't used much: stationary target == sitting duck and easily to exploit bad firing angles). Very easy to derive points. So basically, you'll get two guns and some hitpoints to compensate for no cloak and an object that has four, five times the volume of a PS1 AMS and thus can't make use of the same amount of positions as it requires much more room to deploy and is far harder to cover by blocking it from view protect.

But hey, how could I possibly come to such a conclusion and thus be very concerned about it till I played.

And with that, a judgement is made that will have to be verified in beta. It is critique you hope the devs took into account. If they honestly think it is enough to place a Galaxy in the wide open by sticking a couple guns on it so it can be defended, then it's going to be easy to prove them wrong in beta. I can derive a lot from the images of the bases and continent sofar. My expectations are that the Light Assault class is going to be very much needed, because you will have to advance through the open field a lot from a long distance (as the Galaxy will not be placed up close to a facility unless you firmly control the area).

I already extrapolate from that - in combination with faster TTKs - is going to make holds very hard, as they are already hard when the enemy has to find your spawnpoint first (which it won't need to now since it's going to be sticking out like a soor thumb). Just how hard I can't tell, sure, but that doesn't mean I can't qualify it at all.

An uncloaked Galaxy can't be flown in for stealth ops. It simply has too high a profile for that sort of thing. It is therefore going to make deployment of Galaxies much harder, as an AMS can be placed in the open and in unexpected locations, whereas a Galaxy will have to land in a protected area and will have to be continuously protected. Which means small ops are also going to be even more troublesome as the amount of potential enemies coming to resec has also been increased simply because of a larger playerbase fighting on the same cont.

Combining such information is simple especially if you have 20 years of gaming experience and a lot of years in design.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure such things out.

But hey Vancha, if you can't judge a system before hand, then we are at least sure of one thing: the devs have not been able to judge the system either.

SKYeXile

2012-01-20, 05:28 AM

I already extrapolate from that - in combination with faster TTKs - is going to make holds very hard, as they are already hard when the enemy has to find your spawnpoint first (which it won't need to now since it's going to be sticking out like a soor thumb). Just how hard I can't tell, sure, but that doesn't mean I can't qualify it at all.

Given that one of the hardest thing about a gen hold is always the amount of ammo you have, a gen hold could in theory be easier in PS2, since now there is no need to repair armour. its probable that health regenerates on it own. while i doubt medics will be instant resing people, since im rather sure matts against it they could possibly still res to infinity.

Also with the removal of looting backpacks there needs to be a way to replenish ammo besides going back to a terminal, it would have to be via the typical running over a corpse or with a deployable ammo dispensing facility, hopefully more like TF2 or Nuclear dawn and not BF series.

I think a gen hold would be easier...unless ofcourse you can kill somebody with 1 grenade...given the damage potential of a vamp granaide in a cluster fuck that could be highly possible.

ringring

2012-01-20, 05:38 AM

Lol figgy, you said a lot of the things that are running through my mind.

My only qualification/question is, do I know everything yet? Well, I don't know what I don't know, we'll have to explore all this in beta.

At present I'm still expecting to see a phutzerg of respawnees running from a galaxy far away to the base, whereupon they get immediately farmed and ... rinse/repeat.

I hope there is something unknown to us or at least not clear that would prevent this ^^.

Figment

2012-01-20, 05:40 AM

Given that one of the hardest thing about a gen hold is always the amount of ammo you have, a gen hold could in theory be easier in PS2, since now there is no need to repair armour. its probable that health regenerates on it own. while i doubt medics will be instant resing people, since im rather sure matts against it they could possibly still res to infinity.

Also with the removal of looting backpacks there needs to be a way to replenish ammo besides going back to a terminal, it would have to be via the typical running over a corpse or with a deployable ammo dispensing facility, hopefully more like TF2 or Nuclear dawn and not BF series.

I think a gen hold would be easier...unless ofcourse you can kill somebody with 1 grenade...given the damage potential of a vamp granaide in a cluster fuck that could be highly possible.

I would disagree a bit with that assesment, as that entirely depends on the speed of shield (and health, if applicable) regeneration. If you want a fast shield regen, they said it'd lower the total shield strength. That means that under constant attack, those who can respawn would have a clear advantage as long as they maintain pressure. Attrition would be a definite issue for the holders.

One big difference will also be that not everyone can heal and have very heavy weapons due to the class distinction. That too is going to make it harder to hold, because you can clearly take out the clearly visible medics first to prevent regeneration.

Of course that also depends on vantage points and ease of hitting choke points from cover and the size of these choke points (density and number of enemies coming through). Could be that under conditions of a fast TTK, grenade spam will be extremely effective at choke points. However, if the choke point is not very small (say double door size of current PS), then even with PS1 boomers (which I thought weren't in) it'd be hard to keep the entire choke point in check. Certainly in a low pop situation for the holders, I'd imagine a wide choke point to be to their disadvantage.

I'm not entirely sure if looting backpacks is completely ruled out btw, the trailer did have a TR with a weapon with a NC logo on it (could be placeholder). It's unclear just how you would handle a customized enemy weapon, but I'm assuming that IF looting backpacks for enemy weapons is possible, it defaults to its standard configuration and you still need the appropriate class/certs for it.

Vancha

2012-01-20, 08:42 AM

But hey, how could I possibly come to such a conclusion and thus be very concerned about it till I played.
Because, as Chuddly so well put it...
you're creating a framework in your mind, within which you apply these hypotheticals, that aren't grounded in any sort of reality.
Your entire post assumes so much about the game, I have a hard time keeping them all in my head to type here. In just the first of the three, I count at least four assumptions that could, each and every one them, be utterly and totally incorrect...and they aren't even the speculation itself, they're the things you're basing the speculation on.

Combining such information is simple especially if you have 20 years of gaming experience and a lot of years in design.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure such things out.
The amount of problems with the things you say damages me. At this very moment they are making my brain cry and beg for respite. Please, only you can stop cruelty to brains.

But hey Vancha, if you can't judge a system before hand, then we are at least sure of one thing: the devs have not been able to judge the system either.
Oh god. They're in possession of far more information and facts than we are. How could they possibly not be able to make better judgements than us? Yes, there's plenty that they can't make valid judgements on. They're making a game for thousands of players but don't have thousands of players to test with yet, some of their judgements will probably be catastrophically wrong, but for crying out loud...

Edit: I think this has long stopped being productive, it's just irritating now. I'll give you the last word.

Figment

2012-01-20, 09:48 AM

Soooooo, you are saying now that:

1. My assumptions are unreasonable/unfathomable/not based on experience with analogue situations

(which I already find fascinating)

2. Devs have more knowledge prior (PRIOR) to creating a game? Because that is when decisions have to be made using assumptions.

3. That a framework in my or someone elses head is not refined upon new information?

4. That because assumptions COULD be wrong, they probably are. And that even if you judge a situation under THOSE STATED ASSUMPTIONS this is somehow bad. EVEN if you explicitly state it has to be verified?

Interesting...

CutterJohn

2012-01-20, 10:26 AM

2. Devs have more knowledge prior (PRIOR) to creating a game? Because that is when decisions have to be made using assumptions.

Devs actively playtest throughout development. They have far, far, far more knowledge than you.

4. That because assumptions COULD be wrong, they probably are. And that even if you judge a situation under THOSE STATED ASSUMPTIONS this is somehow bad. EVEN if you explicitly state it has to be verified?

More that its irrelevant if they are wrong or right, since it is not verifiable until at least the beta. Until then its still just an assumption. It may be well reasoned, and it may be right, but it definitely doesn't matter.

Also, its an assumption based on your own preferences. Developers also have preferences, and they also have a lot of experience, and way more actual data. You can of course second guess them. I do it. But it is very much being an armchair quarterback.

Figment

2012-01-20, 11:02 AM

Mind, I don't know about what you think of yourself, but I can tell you and cuddle are placing people into your own framework and don't give them the credit they deserve. You don't seem to want to get it out of your head that when someone makes an analogy with another game that they are not per se thinking in the context of that old game and that they could very well be on to something. I hardly made any significant assumptions, I used something called "deduction" using sample games to argument the case. Not 'induction', which is what you attribute falsely to some people by suggesting they only think in the framework of that alternate game.

And it also doesn't mean that just because it's "a new game" that people suddenly behave completely differently or that huge targets suddenly cannot be targeted anymore (quite the contrary given the evidence a landed Galaxy has to defend itself now) or that huge targets can suddenly hide behind minor terrain features or don't need space. A huge object is a huge object.

Please, instead of making no arguments whatsoever and dismissing out of hand with an attack on character, point out which of the following assumptions I made in that post based on PS1 and experience are so farfetched that you can't possibly suggest them.

Hell, I'd like to know how you could even disagree with them.

- Symmetrically layed out guns on Galaxy
- Likeliness of assault coming from one particular direction, say half a circle in one direction
- Likeliness of pilot wanting to place it in cover
- Likeliness of Galaxy being relatively big in comparison to an old AMS, thus requiring more space and larger cover
- Likeliness that an object that blots out the sun (or at least a significant piece of the sky) and cannot hide itself, is more likely to be spotted before installation than a small vehicle driving behind hills that can cloak itself upon arrival
- Likeliness of footzerg behaviour to be prevalent amongst players of PS2 based on 80% of people doing just that in PS1. (Did you potty train them since?)
- Likeliness that small ops don't have the manpower to defend a Galaxy as they have more objectives to accomplish and guard, which means they would prefer it to have built in passive defenses, such as camouflage (ie. a cloak field) rather than having to baby sit a spawnpoint as well (which may in fact give away its location if it wasn't obvious enough IF for instance 'Reveal Enemies' makes a return in a command tree).
- Likeliness that people prefer not to be a conspicious target that is likely targeted first
- Likeliness of enemies targeting spawnpoint over the randoms around it
- Likeliness of a stationary target the size of a barn to be overlooked or missed by enemy fire and thus not be prefered over a rather small moving target with an attuned weapon for the situation and more control over firing angles
- A Galaxy having more hitpoints than an AMS required, based on transport role over enemy terrain and being a huge stationary target

I think that's about my assumptions based on experience in that post about the Galaxy. I'm sure you having gotten a headache over it, probably have quite a few things to say about them, so please, feel free to "get the last word" in a normal fashion: by argumenting your case.

Figment

2012-01-20, 11:04 AM

Devs actively playtest throughout development. They have far, far, far more knowledge than you.

What does the word PRIOR mean to you?

Read again. Comprehend why I made that comment in the context of the discussion with Vancha. Please.

More that its irrelevant if they are wrong or right, since it is not verifiable until at least the beta. Until then its still just an assumption. It may be well reasoned, and it may be right, but it definitely doesn't matter.

Oh how wrong you are.

User Feedback is never irrelevant. By reading these suggested scenarios, they can doublecheck during alpha, as you mentioned before. BUT for that they have to have considered it. We're just making sure they are and also trying to make sure their assumptions about what players want are correct.

The claim they made that people "got bored just driving, thus they get to gun their tank too", for instance, is not correct at all. I've not encountered one person who got bored driving so far. So if that's the reason to combine that, it's the wrong reason. Might in fact be one of those personal preferences you mention below. Brewko, I'm looking at you.

Also, its an assumption based on your own preferences. Developers also have preferences, and they also have a lot of experience, and way more actual data. You can of course second guess them. I do it. But it is very much being an armchair quarterback.

Designers who only think from their own point of view are bad designers.

cogz

2012-01-20, 02:42 PM

Instead of a spawn point it should just have a spawn catapult where the driver can just fling you wherever he wants when you spawn.

Talek Krell

2012-01-20, 07:30 PM

Raymac

2012-01-20, 07:43 PM

Just have to say this about the Sunderer. From the Twitter Q&A the type of armor doesn't limit what seat you can have so unlike PS1 you can have a Bang Bus full of Maxes. Brings a whole new dimension to Max Crash Teams!! Can't wait.

Figment

2012-01-20, 07:48 PM

Figment, as far as I've been able to glean from this fascinating thread your point is essentially that gals will not work like an AMS if they work as you assume that they'll work and therefore we need to replace them with the AMS.

If that's the case, then you're welcome to think that but I'd appreciate it if you'd be less patronizing about it because it's rather unfounded, and you're quickly shedding what of my respect you garnered in the driver/gunner debate.

Not replace, supplement. As I said earlier, I don't think it'll be suited enough for covert ops and close siege use. If people want a mobile spawn point to use for covert ops (provided there is no engineering device for it), it'll need passive defenses like camouflage/stealth.

And again, I said from the beginning that has to be verified first. I'm not saying Vancha can't have a different opinion, quite the opposite, but that he should respect the judgements of others for what it is. And yes, it is speculation and yes, it may be off the mark. I'm well aware of that. I'll be happy if it is, till then, it's a concern I'm taking to beta.