No AMS's in ps2 ????????

[Roradan]

Ok so i enjoyed ams very much. It was a game just to get past all the enemy armor just to set up your ams near a base and helped advance your front line's again i don't know all the roles and new spawn point's in ps2 so ill have to wait for beta. but ams's allowed for attack's from a unknow location that could sweep a tower. Just would like to see how people feel on this matter? were they as useful as i thought or do i just have a big imagination?

[Mightymouser]

This thread has been made at least a dozen times. Please use the search feature.

[Knocky]

Galaxy will be the AMS now.

Please read the sticky at the top.

AKA....the First Thread

[Roradan]

i hope they give the galaxy a cloak upgrade because it will just be a big siting duck if not

[Skitrel]

i hope they give the galaxy a cloak upgrade because it will just be a big siting duck if not

It has 4 guns and will probably have a shield upgrade for when it's deployed. It will be far from the weak death trap of PS1. It's likely that it's going to be just as tough as the new Sunderer, which reportedly has 4x the armour of tanks.

Picture that alongside the fact that you're going to be using 5 of them in a 60 man mission dropping 50 guys and having 2 pilots/gunners per gal. That's a tonne of fire power to protect the spawn.

[Roradan]

that's a relief to hear the day's of having to bail before the base due to mass air support are over i think i just miss the fact of finding a enemy ams and gank'ing the shit out of the spawne's :D I'am just stoked about beta can't wait to play

[Figment]

It has 4 guns and will probably have a shield upgrade for when it's deployed. It will be far from the weak death trap of PS1. It's likely that it's going to be just as tough as the new Sunderer, which reportedly has 4x the armour of tanks.

Picture that alongside the fact that you're going to be using 5 of them in a 60 man mission dropping 50 guys and having 2 pilots/gunners per gal. That's a tonne of fire power to protect the spawn.

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

And false ones too.


So far:

4 guns is irrelevant if you can't train them all on targets, especially one big target, by the assymetric design and positions of the gun upon deployed and deadzones of each gun
it will be more of a death trap because when it explodes, there will be gunners inside, the AMS of old was NOT a deathtrap. It could explode, it could be OSed, sure. So can a Galaxy. A TRAP would mean you can't get away from it. You can get away as easily from an AMS as from a Galaxy - difference is if you spawn next to a Galaxy you are instant sniper food as there is no cloak shield obscuring you from sight as you get your bearings.
it will need far more armour than a Sunderer, which will make it potentially imba in low pop situations for camping etc.
Picture that when you're going in with a squad of 5 people four of which need to guard the Galaxy while the other guy holds the objective.
There have not been any hints about a shield or other survivability upgrade being present upon deploying


Stop thinking in just your own narrowminded and narrowly and overtly optimisticallly defined combat situations.

Overtly biased fanboy is overtly biased fanboy.

[Kran De Loy]

Chill, no need to be hostile.

They haven't announced they'd put in any kind of defensive stuff to a deployed Gal, but they haven't announced that they wont either.

No AMS means no AMS. So they merged it with the Gal. Until they say more on it doesn't mean that the Gal wont be as effective if not way more effective than the AMS was.

[Skitrel]

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

And false ones too.


So far:

4 guns is irrelevant if you can't train them all on targets, especially one big target, by the assymetric design and positions of the gun upon deployed and deadzones of each gun
it will be more of a death trap because when it explodes, there will be gunners inside, the AMS of old was NOT a deathtrap. It could explode, it could be OSed, sure. So can a Galaxy. A TRAP would mean you can't get away from it. You can get away as easily from an AMS as from a Galaxy - difference is if you spawn next to a Galaxy you are instant sniper food as there is no cloak shield obscuring you from sight as you get your bearings.
it will need far more armour than a Sunderer, which will make it potentially imba in low pop situations for camping etc.
Picture that when you're going in with a squad of 5 people four of which need to guard the Galaxy while the other guy holds the objective.
There have not been any hints about a shield or other survivability upgrade being present upon deploying


Stop thinking in just your own narrowminded and narrowly and overtly optimisticallly defined combat situations.

You can not shoot someone's argument down with "assumptions" while making nothing but assumptions yourself.

Overtly biased fanboy is overtly biased fanboy.

Grow up, if you can't debate without making it personal don't debate at all. Ad hom. Have civil, polite discussions, it is completely unnecessary to make personal remarks. Getting angry and feeling the need to insult someone because you disagree with them is the height of internet childishness and does nothing for the conversation, debate or threads it occurs in.

[Coreldan]

I agree, I dont think theres a need to be that hostile over a matter like this :D

That said, they have mentioned they want that the mobile spawn, as in galaxy, is actively defended. We also know that automated turrets are gone and are replaced by engi deployable manned turrets. So that's probably one of the ideas too, to have people actively defend the Gal.

I have a bit mixed feelings about that, as a Gal defense duty doesnt sound overly fun, but we'll see :D

[PredatorFour]

Well with no AMS we are going to NEED to swap them 4 guns for a cloak shield(hopefully an option). Those that havnt played PS wont understand but being an AMS driver personally, if your seen near an intense firefight for a base, your soon dead. If you land a massive gal near a busy interfarm to get a closer spawn = your even dead-er;)

[Skitrel]

Well with no AMS we are going to NEED to swap them 4 guns for a cloak shield(hopefully an option). Those that havnt played PS wont understand but being an AMS driver personally, if your seen near an intense firefight for a base, your soon dead. If you land a massive gal near a busy interfarm to get a closer spawn = your even dead-er;)

Wait til beta. None of us have any real idea how it's going to play out. Invisible spawn points, in my opinion, in modern gaming today, would be horrible.

/comma splicing because that's how I roll

[Figment]

You can not shoot someone's argument down with "assumptions" while making nothing but assumptions yourself.

What assumptions?

We know the locations of the four guns. We know what the Gal looks like. You can easily see a gun on the LEFT WING cannot fire at the RIGHT SIDE. Except you, who will ponder this in beta.

Gunners inside have to get out first (unlike people in an AMS, at most one) and if they do they will be right next to an exploding Gal, if they have time to get out in the first place. A Galaxy is a bigger target and will thus have a bigger explosion radius than a small AMS. If anything is a deathtrap, surely the Galaxy, being visible also, is a bigger one. Literally. You don't have to wait for beta to understand that, it requires something you don't apply though: common sense.

Something that needs to be sustained for many, MANY minutes while its location is fixed, known and quite substantially larger than a Sunderer simply needs more armour than a fast moving single use stormram vehicle like the Sunderer will be. That doesn't mean that's going to be the only way you could use this amount of hitpoints though. In fact, your claim to a shield was an assumption I introduced due to the airborne/deployed state difference. I like how you took my assumption then and made it for fact.

You only consider the situation where a huge outfit uses these and has the spare manpower to defend them. I point out that's not always going to be the case and that there will be small outfits who are screwed by this spawnpoint design.



You are the one who is making assumptions without running any other scenarios aside from the ones that in your mind work. You don't actually look at the roles and abuse potentials, nor even the known layout of the vehicles.

So yes, you sir, are a biased fanboy who doesn't know squat.

[Skitrel]

What assumptions?

We know the locations of the four guns. We know what the Gal looks like. You can easily see a gun on the LEFT WING cannot fire at the RIGHT SIDE. Except you, who will ponder this in beta.

Gunners inside have to get out first (unlike people in an AMS, at most one) and if they do they will be right next to an exploding Gal, if they have time to get out in the first place. A Galaxy is a bigger target and will thus have a bigger explosion radius than a small AMS. If anything is a deathtrap, surely the Galaxy, being visible also, is a bigger one. Literally. You don't have to wait for beta to understand that, it requires something you don't apply though: common sense.

Something that needs to be sustained for many, MANY minutes while its location is fixed, known and quite substantially larger than a Sunderer simply needs more armour than a fast moving single use stormram vehicle like the Sunderer will be. That doesn't mean that's going to be the only way you could use this amount of hitpoints though. In fact, your claim to a shield was an assumption I introduced due to the airborne/deployed state difference. I like how you took my assumption then and made it for fact.

You only consider the situation where a huge outfit uses these and has the spare manpower to defend them. I point out that's not always going to be the case and that there will be small outfits who are screwed by this spawnpoint design.



You are the one who is making assumptions without running any other scenarios aside from the ones that in your mind work. You don't actually look at the roles and abuse potentials, nor even the known layout of the vehicles.

So yes, you sir, are a biased fanboy who doesn't know squat.

My first ignore.

[Figment]

It has 4 guns and will probably have a shield upgrade for when it's deployed. It will be far from the weak death trap of PS1. It's likely that it's going to be just as tough as the new Sunderer, which reportedly has 4x the armour of tanks.

Picture that alongside the fact that you're going to be using 5 of them in a 60 man mission dropping 50 guys and having 2 pilots/gunners per gal. That's a tonne of fire power to protect the spawn.

Wait till beta before saying that. Wait till beta. Wait till beta. Wait till beta.


Oh wait (till beta), you are the only one who can say things before hand. Right? The rest of us have to wait till beta.

Hypocrite.

And yes, Coreldan, I get hostile towards hypocrites, because they deserve it.

EDIT: YAY on ignore. Without trying to point out where the assumptions are made or flawed, as usual. Oh wait, we have to wait for beta.

[MgFalcon]

I think a 30 second google search would remedy all your queries. Please revert to that before you make another thread about a topic that's been beaten to death on these forums :rolleyes:

Orrrr you could head over to the PSU Wiki page found at the top of your webpage and access our amazing database on all things Planetside and Planetside 2! :D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrBloodworth]

Grow up

My first ignore.

insult someone because you disagree with them is the height of internet childishness

:rolleyes:


Perhaps this comes up, because its a point of concern for people. Trying to shut down discussion with "Waite till beta" is not helping. Its also a highly trusting position, boarding on naive. The forums are here for people to share and discuss opinions and ideas about a game they love.


On-topic

I personally likes the role an AMS brought, and how effective it was at changing the tide. I have zero faith a Galaxy will survive at all in its deployed state, fixed guns can not trump stealth, or a 6 wing Air cav.

I just don't see it.

[Skitrel]

Further derailing discussion by bringing something up that 1 had nothing to do with you and 2 was finished with perfectly fine while masking your flame by adding a little "On topic" section, while calling someone out with "The forums are here for people to share and discuss opinions and ideas about a game they love." is beyond hypocritical. Practice what you preach.

The correct response would not have included mine and figment's encounter at all.

On-topic ;) Necessary idiot edit - this was quite deliberate, illustrative writing.

I personally disagree, and have absolutely no problem embracing the possibility of new, up to date, gameplay. We shall see what beta brings. Shooting down new gameplay mechanics as though they're a terrible thing with absolutely zero experience of them is silly. Speculation should never include personal preferences because personal preferences can not be accounted for without experience. It is the act of deciding something is bad before actually knowing it is, and doing so is often a self fulfilling prophecy. The community should embrace changes, give them a chance, and then see what needs changing through experience, not through presumptuous pre-emptive speculation.

[Figment]

Further derailing discussion by bringing something up that 1 had nothing to do with you and 2 was finished with perfectly fine while masking your flame by adding a little "On topic" section, while calling someone out with "The forums are here for people to share and discuss opinions and ideas about a game they love." is beyond hypocritical. Practice what you preach.

The correct response would not have included mine and figment's encounter at all.

On-topic

I personally disagree, and have absolutely no problem embracing the possibility of new, up to date, gameplay. We shall see what beta brings. Shooting down new gameplay mechanics as though they're a terrible thing with absolutely zero experience of them is silly. Speculation should never include personal preferences because personal preferences can not be accounted for without experience. It is the act of deciding something is bad before actually knowing it is, and doing so is often a self fulfilling prophecy. The community should embrace changes, give them a chance, and then see what needs changing through experience, not through presumptuous pre-emptive speculation.

Hypocrite.

Edit: why hypocrite?

1. You continuously call people out and troll them with one liner or even one worder posts that lack content, argument or even a mere indication of what might be wrong with the other's post. You do not discuss things and you don't do so intelligently. You merely pose as intelligent by refering to types of argumentation used, without clarifying why. You never do. When called out on this behaviour you use circle argumentation or simply ignore and evade debate. It is quite hypocritical to adress Bloodworth on something you are far worse at.

2. You embrace things you don't know will work yet, thus judging them as GOOD things before having had hands on experience as well. If you can't criticize something for being bad, you can't like something either for being good either. Hypocrite.

3. Your personal preferences are very obvious: you think from an Enclave playstyle and from an Enclave playstyle only. Quite obvious how the Enclave doesn't even consider the Infiltrator a useful class, also funny that you don't thwap them around the ears for judging something as useless before beta. In fact!

Everyone does, Enclave doesn't currently see the infiltrator as a worthwhile unit at all. One or two incredibly good snipers might be beneficial, obviously the point being that they have to be genuinely of the exceptionally skilled group for it to be worthwhile, otherwise, no.

Hypocrite!

4. Your experience argument omits the fact that experience can be had and gained beforehand by having experience with and knowledge of similar contexts. You omit that units are created by devs using nothing but gameplay theory and interaction intentions before actual hands on experience as well. Gameplay theory has been shared plentifully by the devs, but can be pointed out to be flawed, incomplete or otherwise criticable. You consistently make up your own gameplay theory, but do not allow others to do so, nor give these arguments a fair chance or scrutinous look. That makes you a hypocrite.

5. Denouncing critique on a design as unsubstantiated without any substantial evidence or even analogies to back up the claim that a claim is unsubstantiated yourself, is extremely hypocritical.

6. Questioning assumptions (which are thoroughly explained to why they can be made), while making your own assumptions without even a mere analogy or reasoning why you would be able to make such an assumption is highly hypocritical.


Your argument regarding self fullfilling prophecies is also very poor and also false. That would suggest we, the critics, would create the game such that it does just that to prove us right. Instead, all critique and design suggestions is aimed at preventing just that or diminishing the effect of that which we already know will happen based on experience.

[Skitrel]

Forum seems to have hiccuped. This post was intended for a different thread altogether.
-snip-

[NCLynx]

Inb4 thread closed or merged.

Yes things changed, AMS is gone. Until we can see how the galaxy plays out in beta no one can accurately judge how good or bad of a system it is.

[Crator]

I'll miss the cloak capabilities of the AMS. No doubt. Let's hope if the GAL mechanics, alongside every other spawn mechanic, works fine without the cloaking. If not, I don't see why they couldn't add the ability as a class upgrade later on down the line.

[KrazeyVIII]

Oh wait (till beta), you are the only one who can say things before hand. Right? The rest of us have to wait till beta.

Hypocrite.

And yes, Coreldan, I get hostile towards hypocrites, because they deserve it.

True forum hero right here boys.

Facts:

- The AMS is gone.
- The Galaxy will now serve multiple purposes - One of them being a mobile spawn.
- The Galaxy will have 4 guns.
- Gunners will choose to be in the galaxy to defend it, to the death if they want.
- No cloak (for now).
- Gunners in the Galaxy will have to get out (good observation).
- A Galaxy is a bigger target then an AMS (another good one).
You don't have to wait for BETA to understand that

Wiser words were never spoken.


Assumptions:

- The Galaxy will have a huge explosion radius.
- The Galaxy will have shield upgrades.
- The shield upgrades will come at a cost of losing the main guns.
- The gunners on the right can shoot through the vehicle to the left (Oh, sorry that was another one of those personal attacks by you).
- It will have more armor then the Galaxy in PS1 (Very GOOD assumption).
- If the Galaxy is an unkillable war machine it can be parked in a courtyard or outside a tower to lock down an area (the one true point you've actually made)

So outside of all your bullshit there is one thing that may need to get tweaked a lot in beta, and that's abusing the tankyness of the Galaxy (and Sunderer) by parking them in areas to shut down a certain part of a zone or base. If this IS possible then it will probably need fixing - i.e. wait for BETA.


Picture that when you're going in with a squad of 5 people four of which need to guard the Galaxy while the other guy holds the objective.

If you have a squad of 5 people and you devote 4 people to a Galaxy then your squad leader should not be in a leadership role. Judging by your personality I can only assume you think you are a Chief and not an Indian. So that command mistake can be brought back to you. So when your 5 man spec-ops squad fails because you've dedicated more of your squad to defending your spawn point (which should of been hidden well in the first place) then to defending the objective you were trying to take, don't be surprised when you post it on the forums to only be mocked by everyone there. Even without being in BETA your example proves 1 of 2 things. Either you're grasping for straws trying to find a way to make Skitrel look like an idiot (sadly that attempt is having the opposite effect), or you truly have no knowledge of the game or how to lead a squad and think you are actually correct in your statements. I really hope the former is the case because the latter is too pathetic to comprehend.

And now:

In fact, your claim to a shield was an assumption I introduced due to the airborne/deployed state difference. I like how you took my assumption then and made it for fact.

I've read every post in this thread. Neither you, nor anyone else, mentions this once before that post. Someone else hints at shields but no one mentions airborne and deployed states. You have a massively inflated ego that can only be matched by your stupidity.

Enjoy being a non-factor.

[Figment]

- The Galaxy will have a huge explosion radius.

Actually, the assumption is the Galaxy will have a bigger explosion radius than the AMS, based on the Galaxy being bigger than the AMS (at least twice). So if it explodes, it is by default... a bigger explosion.

So outside of all your bullshit there is one thing that may need to get tweaked a lot in beta, and that's abusing the tankyness of the Galaxy (and Sunderer) by parking them in areas to shut down a certain part of a zone or base. If this IS possible then it will probably need fixing - i.e. wait for BETA.

I'm interested in who you are adressing, since you say all my arguments are good, Skitrel's are bad and seem to post them under the assumption they're made by the same person. They're not.

Also interesting in how you state gunnerS (multiple, when we know there's only one) on the right not being able to fire to the left - which is a fact - is a personal attack. It is a clarification to why you cannot pretend the four guns are all useful at the same time: dead zones.

If you have a squad of 5 people and you devote 4 people to a Galaxy then your squad leader should not be in a leadership role. Judging by your personality I can only assume you think you are a Chief and not an Indian. So that command mistake can be brought back to you. So when your 5 man spec-ops squad fails because you've dedicated more of your squad to defending your spawn point (which should of been hidden well in the first place) then to defending the objective you were trying to take, don't be surprised when you post it on the forums to only be mocked by everyone there. Even without being in BETA your example proves 1 of 2 things. Either you're grasping for straws trying to find a way to make Skitrel look like an idiot (sadly that attempt is having the opposite effect), or you truly have no knowledge of the game or how to lead a squad and think you are actually correct in your statements. I really hope the former is the case because the latter is too pathetic to comprehend.

...SIGH. I was illustrating why the Galaxy would NOT be adequately defended, as Skitrel claimed would always be the case. How? By showing that you would NEVER devote people to hold the Galaxy, because it'd be utterly retarded to do so and you can't afford to keep people stationed there.

Thank you for proving my point.

Oh and I also like how you state it would have to be hidden well. That's also something I've been saying for months... But people like Skitrel think is irrelevant for a spawnpoint, because you have four guns to defend it.

I've read every post in this thread. Neither you, nor anyone else, mentions this once before that post. Someone else hints at shields but no one mentions airborne and deployed states. You have a massively inflated ego that can only be matched by your stupidity.

Enjoy being a non-factor.

Actually Skitrel said there will most likely be shields in his first post.

This shield concept upon deploying was mentioned in the first AMS/Gal thread about 3 months ago by me and taken as a "probable" assumption by Skitrel on which he bases it to be a good design. In fact it was because I stated the amount of hitpoints when flying would otherwise be preposterously huge in comparison to the amount of hitpoints needed to be a field base.

Thanks for trying, sadly you didn't quite have the full picture. So basically, you agreed with everything I said, disagreed with everything Skitrel proposed and somehow call me out on it? >.> Ehm. Yeah good luck with that.


EDIT: Found it for you, note the time stamp: 01-28-2012, 01:21 AM. As far as I'm aware, I was one of the first, if not the first to bring that up. However, this has never been mentioned in any dev post or commentary. So Skitrel insinuating there'd probably be one is a bad assumption.

@Warborn: It's not the landed vehicle that worries me, it is the flying one. I'd put a recharging vehicle shield (like field turret, starts at zero charge) on a deployed (not landed!) Gal. Then in flight it is not invulnerably strong, especially when used in numbers, while providing a more sustainable field base.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=38741&highlight=shield+deployed&page=2

[SteinB]

Higby has already said in the GDC video that they are still working on ideas on how Galaxies will physically deploy. This could certainly include the wings folding in a way that gives the turrets better fields of fire.

A point also missed in many of these Galaxy/AMS discussions is that we will be able to capture and use spawn points inside of enemy bases. Galaxies will not have to survive for the entire fight for a base, just until an interior spawn point is secured.

[KrazeyVIII]

Large ego: confirmed. Superiority complex: confirmed.

Non-factors trying to get@ppl

[CuddlyChud]

Unbridled cynicism !> unbridled optimism. I trust the devs. Maybe i'm just old fashioned like that. I can see a lot of ways where having the Gal as a deployment method will be more fun than the old AMS (which IMO wasn't much fun to use).

[Kran De Loy]

So yes, you sir, are a biased fanboy who doesn't know squat.


Troll card? btw: I didn't bother reading any thing else of your shit talk.

[Figment]

Krazey == troll? Confirmed. Would you care to admit you were making premature conclusions too and missed the sarcasm and point of a couple posts? That'd be mature...

Krazey, I don't have an inflated ego, I'm simply confident that I'm correct and can make certain assumptions. Is it arrogant to be correct and state so? Fine. Then I'm arrogant.

Higby has already said in the GDC video that they are still working on ideas on how Galaxies will physically deploy. This could certainly include the wings folding in a way that gives the turrets better fields of fire.

Quite. Certainly why they need to have feedback on how it'd be used, what its limitations might be and more importantly what it'd have to be useful for. Some ideas wouldn't hurt either.

If the model will deploy differently remains to be seen, up till now all it does is put up a term next to it (see gameplay vid). It could help, but even if you change the wings folding, you will still have pretty big dead zone angles (see Wall Turrets) and if you raise the guns to reach over the Gal, you also may run the risk of increasing its profile (what you lose in profile horizontally, you may gain vertically) making it even easier to hit behind cover. Ball joints or ball turrets also only have half a globe they could cover and that may even be alightly less (120-140 instead of 180 deg, for instance). Plus, if you raise the guns for instance, it'll be harder to hit something nearby and would simply create different deadzones.

All in all, from PS1 Gal experience, a landed gal's guns aren't extremely useful due to the size and layout of the Galaxy, regardless of on what part of the Gal they are. The only useful one and most likely one to be manned will be the top AA gun, IMO. Beyond that, everyone should deploy the Gal back first to enemy approach route, to get the most out of the tail gun. That puts the tail in the way of the top gun...

It's not an uninformed opinion, it's considering a large amount of alternative configurations as well as how you would both defend and take it out in each case. Each and every one of them will have severe weaknesses, easily exploited.

A point also missed in many of these Galaxy/AMS discussions is that we will be able to capture and use spawn points inside of enemy bases. Galaxies will not have to survive for the entire fight for a base, just until an interior spawn point is secured.

Hehe... Also a point made by me many months ago, but then my assumption that you would need to be able to capture local spawns was considered "premature" as well. Again, nobody considered it till then... But hey it's arrogant to say that...

In fact, I would go as far to say I've not once been shown wrong with any predictions yet... :/

@Kran: trollcard? No, it's based on a long posting record of Skitrel around here. It's not a random insult, it's an observation. And argumented at that. If you can prove he's not a fanboy that embraces everything no questions asked and critiques anyone who critiques, be my guest and I'll happily retract the statement.

[Figment]

Unbridled cynicism !> unbridled optimism. I trust the devs. Maybe i'm just old fashioned like that. I can see a lot of ways where having the Gal as a deployment method will be more fun than the old AMS (which IMO wasn't much fun to use).

As I've stated many times before in other threads: it can be used as a spawn point in certain situations, particularly in zerg situations and in long distance to enemy situations.

But it does not and will never suffice for small ops teams. Which is why I and many others have advocated for alternatives to the Galaxy that have passive defenses so we don't need to be around it continuously.

The AMS with cloak shield is a perfect candidate for the job as it has proven its usefulness for almost a decade. >_> How is that unbridled cynicism? I'd call that critical realism.

EDIT: What would you call people dismissing the AMS arbitrarily (no arguments made to why) as obsolete, non-modern game mechanic, even a horrible game mechanic?

[Raymac]

I was going to jump in and say that finding a cloaked AMS is incredibly simple so the cloak does about as much good as ze TR goggles.

But then I saw the vast amount of douchebaggery in this thread and people focusing more on personal attacks than talking about the actual topic and realized that I don't want any part of it.

I really don't like how this forum is slowly turning into the old Forumside. It's not just Figment doing it either. It's alot of people (myself included sometimes). Maybe I've calmed down because I'm finally getting laid more or something, but you guys need to chill the frack out.

[Coreldan]

Maybe I've calmed down because I'm finally getting laid more or something, but you guys need to chill the frack out.

Switching hands doesnt count! :D

But I hear what you are saying, there are currently several really controversial people on these forums that manage to turn just about any discussion they touch hostile.

It's sad cos these people often have good points, it's the output and attitude that just sucks. So I wouldnt like to see people banned who actually have a clue what they are talking about, but it also really bothers me to see all the hostile shit around here the last few weeks especially.

[Figment]

Well, I don't try to create flame wars and I certainly don't go out looking for them, I do often end up in them.

I'm a pretty confrontational, non-follow-the-herd type of guy and quite blunt and often sarcastic in my postings and I do not accept an ill-argued reply. I'm too stubborn and passionate about the subject (and these people's potential to hand devs false, critiqueless or otherwise bad information) to walk away or ignore it too.

If I state something, it's after careful consideration from all kinds of perspectives and user-scenarios. Too often I see narrowminded perspectives and critiqueless fanboyism dominate the debates. People who mention or want to protect or even relate to PS1 mechanics are being characterized as fossiles by a lot of them - usualy without their argument even being considered. Using Ad Hominems like these is extremely disrespectful behaviour and certainly does not benefit debate, but few others make a stand against this sort of tunnelvision and PS2 fanboyism herdbehaviour being created.

I do like Higby and most other devs as a person, but I won't kiss his or anyone elses arse at any fart that comes out. Just saying, some do.

As an artist and designer myself, I know how important critique, especially constructive critique and communicating feedback from past experience is, as well as making as wide varieties of user analyses as possible. Most people I clash with only checked their personal use and then typically only zerg gameplay. That's frustrating and would make for a skewed game in favour of just one gameplay by only supporting that gameplay.



Anybody who thinks he is contributing (worse contributing more) by letting the devs just do their thing (applying Unquestionable Praise and Trust) or worse, being a ... wait for it... Beta-nazi as I've come to call it, is not helping at all. Because that stops or at least hinders in constructive critique reaching the devs when they can still do a lot with it.

I can't stand either of those attitudes, because it means the devs can relax and don't have to stay on their toes to deliver the optimum result. As such, I really like how critical TRay is of the art. But he doesn't need me to tell me that, it'd just make him subtly more prone to slacking.

Worse, I can't really stand ignorance or ignorant claims, which are in some cases defended by the ones making the statements as if they are holy scripture. There is no self-critique there whatsoever. Unfortunately, a certain group of players some of which part of a certain outfit, tend to try and dominate the debates from their perspective and theirs alone.

I respect someone who has a different view than mine and makes a good argument for it. I disagree a lot with certain players, but I respect them for the manner in which they built up their argument. I cannot say the same for anyone who says "wait for beta".


Imagine if you were an artist and post a Work In Progress or a finised piece and in both cases, all comments you get are "nice!", "cool!", "sweet!". How do you learn from it so this or your next piece of art will become even better? I'd rather have someone question the composition, the lighting or point out perspective flaws than that they say "that's awesome!".

Unfortunately, that attitude is typically lost on non-artists. Especially fans. I've even had to tell off fans of my work on several occassions for attacking people who critiqued me, simply because they did already like it the way it was...

[Kran De Loy]

Yeah, while I hate putting people the ignore list, I do ignore the crap out of a lot of people. Basically if I ever end up feeling like I have to skip around in a person's post I'm already not very interested in whatever their opinion is.

If a poster has excessively poor spelling or grammar like Stew over in the SOE Region Lock thread I just ignore them by not reading it. I may at some point want to try and read it for points later on when I'm more patient or if I want to go back and read something that someone else pointed out that may have been interesting.

On the other hand people that maliciously attack others with half or more of their posts I just can not take seriously. I'm not going to bother reading 600 words of lickspittle hate-froth to get to the few bits of actual argument that may or may not have any impact on the discussion.

[PredatorFour]

Basically with the gal assumptions, specifically the massive uncloaked target compared to the cloaked ams, we can make these assumptions from years of experience from the first game. We dont need to wait for beta cos we have a pretty good idea how it will pan out. I know PS 2 is uncomparable to PS on many levels but this mobile spawning dynamic is surely similiar tactically to PS. Again , assumption made from years of experience dealing with mobile spawn points ingame.

[Aurmanite]

Well, I don't try to create flame wars and I certainly don't go out looking for them, I do often end up in them.

I'm a pretty confrontational, non-follow-the-herd type of guy and quite blunt and often sarcastic in my postings me me me me mine mine mine mine I I I I I I me me me me

This thread is now about Figment...apparently...?

[TacosWLove]

There is FLYING AMS's now? How could you not be satisfied?

Sure they dont cloak, or drive, have a big red sign on them that says "shoot me", but gawd damn they sure do fly!

[Bonius]

After being critted by walls upon walls of unrelated text and childish dickwobbling, you've all forgotten some important aspects that will be in PS2.

#1: Squad spawning
#2: Capturable spawns within bases
#3: Outposts
#4: Dedicated heal & ressurrect class

I'm glad the AMS is gone, I absolutely hate how that spawn-mechanic worked.

Let's turn the table a bit, if just to enlighten the absolutely narrow minded douchebaggery that goes on within this community:

"No more spawngals in PS2???????

Are they really removing the spawnable galaxy gunship and replacing it with a cloaking fire-truck?! What kind of idiot came up with this idea?! How are we supposed to be able to do spec-ops drops now? Drive the truck into their courtyard with a huge "OVER HERE GAIS!" over our heads?! *insert flame*"

See what I did there?

[Graywolves]

If the Galaxy fails its role in beta (which it probably will) then we'll get our AMS before launch, more than likely.

If it works, then there's nothing to worry about.

[Infektion]

Peanut butter burgers are strange, I have NO IDEA how people actually sell them, or eat them...

[Graywolves]

Peanut butter burgers are strange, I have NO IDEA how people actually sell them, or eat them...

It's peanut butter. Everyone should eat everything with peanut butter.

[KrazeyVIII]

Well, I don't try to create flame wars and I certainly don't go out looking for them, I do often end up in them.

I would like to direct everyone to your FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

And false ones too.

Stop thinking in just your own narrowminded and narrowly and overtly optimisticallly defined combat situations.

Overtly biased fanboy is overtly biased fanboy.

Stop playing the white knight.

This thread died the second you started sharing your 'assumptions'.

SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD

I don't have an inflated ego, I'm simply confident that I'm correct and can make certain assumptions. Is it arrogant to be correct and state so? Fine. Then I'm arrogant.

You can not shoot someone's argument down with "assumptions" while making nothing but assumptions yourself.

What assumptions?... ...You are the one who is making assumptions without running any other scenarios aside from the ones that in your mind work. You don't actually look at the roles and abuse potentials, nor even the known layout of the vehicles.

So yes, you sir, are a biased fanboy who doesn't know squat.

You are clearly the only one allowed to not only make personal insults, but assumptions as well.

THIRD POST

Wait till beta before saying that. Wait till beta. Wait till beta. Wait till beta.


Oh wait (till beta), you are the only one who can say things before hand. Right? The rest of us have to wait till beta.

Hypocrite.

And yes, Coreldan, I get hostile towards hypocrites, because they deserve it.

You must absolutely despise yourself then.

[TheRagingGerbil]

The AMS mechanic in the original PS sucked, it really did.

I for one am excited for the new "Galaxy Mobile Station" from hence fourth known as the "GMS." Especially with the new terrain with all of the vehicle choke points and inaccessible space.

As for the lack of cloak... I am waiting to see what toys our engineers get before crying that the new GMS is broken. I am envisioning the GMS landing and deploying. An engineer immediately deploying an Aegis Shield Generator, motion sensors, mines, etc. At this point we effectively have a much more capable FOB than the original AMS.

[CutterJohn]

Gal is less defendable than the AMS, pretty sure the devs are aware of this fact, and this is exactly what they are intending.

Just because it would not be a good idea in the context of PS1 doesn't mean it would be a bad idea in PS2.

[megamold]

in my mind they are doing this because they want the mobile spawn point to be further away from the base.
like over the nearest ridge rather then 10meters away from the backdoor.

i think this also ties in with the probability that bases will have less chokepoints ( in relation to a walled in base with just a front and backdoor )
in wich case having the AMS would cut out any real battle for the "courtyard" of that base.

so the gal spawning would make actually taking over the "courtyard" more fun engaging and challenging in a good way, rather then just create a giant bottleneck.

[Chaff]

.
Nothing like someone using the word "I" hundreds of times -instantly killing any chance they may have gotten us to pay attention otherwise.

I liked some of the aspects of AMS'....helpful if placed carefully in a CY before a major base attack ensued. Sure. Anyone who played any amount of time could either flat-out "sse" the obvious.....as troops appeared our of nowhere....or red dots poured out of "nowhere" - on one point on their map.

AMS deployment was a bit of a game of cat-and-mouse. Boring for most ?
Sounds like it.

Some seemed to embrace the role - at least when needed. An AMS that lasted more than 5 minutes in a significant hot area required more than blind luck.

Despite the rants or claims by some people who know-and-see-all .... before true firsthand experience verifies their advanced wisdom and asumptive reasoning abilties.....before a new game mechanic is seen or used.....chill is indeed the proper form of restraint best observed.

We really do need to give it a chance. It might not work at all, or it likely (at the very least) will need tweaking.

The Flamers and Ego-Trollers won't kill my feelings for PSU. If needed, HAMMA will do what's best for the community. Too many good cats here to let one or two spoil the barrel.

I liked AMS' in PS1. I'm not against the new mechanics (yet). They're trying to improve the game. I'm wait-and-see on this game. I prejudge it too - can't avoid it. I have to force myself to not go too far (rant) without factual experience to draw from.
.

[Zulthus]

I'll be honest, I liked the community more before the new guys started flooding in. Not all of them of course. But most of them.

All most threads are now is who has a bigger dick than who.

[Chaff]

I'll be honest, I liked the community more before the new guys started flooding in. Not all of them of course. But most of them.

All most threads are now is who has a bigger dick than who.
:cry:


IMHO, there are at least a dozen (or so) guys here who stand head-and-shoulders above the rest.
Any one of these guys complains to Hamma, and I think their opinion will hold great influence with him.

All the more reason for cats like you to stay active here. MOST guys here "get it".

If a few noobs who are professional Trollers can throw us off.....that's a reflection on us.

IT IS WHAT IT IS

Hamma could get a bit overwhelmed. If so, he'll have to get his Ban-Hammer upgraded. Have Faith that this community will stick together while insisting that certain minimal levels of civility and openmindedness are never undervalued.
:groovy:

I still feel like a "new guy" here....and I like that feeling. I have great respect for the cats who've been here a long time, have great passion and game skills, are highly opinionated, yet are still not assholes.

It ain't hard to be cool. Problem is, that the internet makes it too easy to be an asshat for ones own lowly self-consumed entertainment.
.
.

[Hamma]

Feel free to report anyone you feel needs to be reported. Infractions are offen issued and just not seen. And 3 infractions equals a ban.

[Graywolves]

I'll be honest, I liked the community more before the new guys started flooding in. Not all of them of course. But most of them.

All most threads are now is who has a bigger dick than who.

It's not only new people. But the number of "I'm smarter and know more than everyone else" posts are becoming too frequent.


I think once information is less speculative we should see stability again.

[sylphaen]

It's not only new people. But the number of "I'm smarter and know more than everyone else" posts are becoming too frequent.


I think once information is less speculative we should see stability again.

I share the feeling.

[Roradan]

skitrel clam down man i just wanted to see what people thought about no ams's and if they would be missed. no need to get mad at people, let them say what they say just geting mad show's your immaturity. yes it will be different in ps2 beta. but just pointing something out about how useful the ams was is no reason to get all worked up. can we talk like grown men/ i don't know if your a woman and pms'ing but if so iam sorry. :)

[Roradan]

There is FLYING AMS's now? How could you not be satisfied?

Sure they dont cloak, or drive, have a big red sign on them that says "shoot me", but gawd damn they sure do fly!

yes but doe's that make it easy bait for a air outfit ? that has 30 aircraft ?

[Roradan]

The AMS mechanic in the original PS sucked, it really did.

I for one am excited for the new "Galaxy Mobile Station" from hence fourth known as the "GMS." Especially with the new terrain with all of the vehicle choke points and inaccessible space.

As for the lack of cloak... I am waiting to see what toys our engineers get before crying that the new GMS is broken. I am envisioning the GMS landing and deploying. An engineer immediately deploying an Aegis Shield Generator, motion sensors, mines, etc. At this point we effectively have a much more capable FOB than the original AMS.

no one is crying the gms is broken, yes we could have some cool shit to defend it with but simple saying it will be wide open to air attacks and that's just saying when you have 1000's of people playing on one cont then you will get 20 30 man air outfit's doing knowing but own ground unit's so a cloak i think would help when the gms is deployed like the old ams. just a thought ?

[Roradan]

in my mind they are doing this because they want the mobile spawn point to be further away from the base.
like over the nearest ridge rather then 10meters away from the backdoor.

i think this also ties in with the probability that bases will have less chokepoints ( in relation to a walled in base with just a front and backdoor )
in wich case having the AMS would cut out any real battle for the "courtyard" of that base.

so the gal spawning would make actually taking over the "courtyard" more fun engaging and challenging in a good way, rather then just create a giant bottleneck.

you make a very good point you got me thinking ill get back to you when i have debated what you have said but still very good answer

[Malorn]

If the classic AMS is needed all they would need to do is add a "cloak when deployed" utility upgrade to the galaxy. Fairly simple to add I imagine. Maybe they'll experiment with it but this is something that seems very hard to predict how it will play out. Seems easy enough to give the galaxy cloaking when deployed if it needs it due to beta feedback.

[Raka Maru]

AMS was my main ride. As I've said before, I will miss it greatly. Would love to see its return, but will give the gal a good try before passing judgement.

[HalfManHalfGod]

I'm thinking the galaxy is going to be pretty awesome with hefty AA and AV guns. Its not gonna be easy to take one down with a couple people defending one.

[Skitrel]

skitrel clam down man i just wanted to see what people thought about no ams's and if they would be missed. no need to get mad at people, let them say what they say just geting mad show's your immaturity. yes it will be different in ps2 beta. but just pointing something out about how useful the ams was is no reason to get all worked up. can we talk like grown men/ i don't know if your a woman and pms'ing but if so iam sorry. :)

Really? What?

I stopped posting in this topic 3 pages ago. I told him not to personally attack me, then ignored him when he did so again. That is the very definition of what someone that wants to act grown up does. Pointing the finger my way in contrary to the behaviour that occurred for the following 3 pages of the thread is hilarious.

[Kran De Loy]

If the classic AMS is needed all they would need to do is add a "cloak when deployed" utility upgrade to the galaxy. Fairly simple to add I imagine. Maybe they'll experiment with it but this is something that seems very hard to predict how it will play out. Seems easy enough to give the galaxy cloaking when deployed if it needs it due to beta feedback.

By the way, that would be pretty f'ing sweet. Imagine the pilot flying high over long distances but once he gets 1 or 2 km from the target he goes down as low as he can to use hills and canyons for cover to get as close to the base as he can without getting detected before he can deploy and set the cloaking field. While the pilot is controlling the Gal he's got someone in the back with the map open giving him guidance instructions to keep under cover as long as possible.

I think I just wet my pants just thinking about a Gal drop of all things.

Edit: Oh sh*t! Alternatively without the Cloaking Field there could be a hot drop kind of mechanic sidegrade for the Gal that all it does is let the pilot use after burners to KILL momentum. Oh man, Then you see entire Gals nose diving for the base then immediately before they'd crash they'd turn up and burn everything they have to make a hard landing and deploy..

I think I just crapped myself too!

[Chaff]

Every blue moon I enjoyed going out in an AMS and deploying it deep in a nest of trees....safe from an enemy vehicle randomly coming across it.....then I'd stuff my Infiltrator suit full of CE and lay minefields, spitfires,....

It was usually boring and a waste of my time. I only did it when I felt there was nothing compelling to do.

...except for those rare nights where 3 or 4 random vehicles full of bad guys would die in rapid succession - somewhere they never suspected. The agro hate tells made it seem worth the time and effort to go out, find the spot, and set out a full spread of CE.

If the Outfit was done for the night, the last 2 or 3 of us would occasionally pull a Marauder and an AMS. The AMS was our retool/reload terminal. We'd lay out all the CE three ADV ENG were allowed, then go out and try to bait an enemy tank to chase us thru the kill zone we put out. Occasionally, it was an entertaining way to end a busy night.

That is one AMS use I'll miss. Didn't do it much, but the AMS made it easy. After your get your jolles, pack er up and deploy it somewhere where it's really needed.

It was also funny to see the occasional noob respawn there - when the real battle they wanted to be at was at least a 5-10 run away.

I might miss the AMS....and I might not. It was fun for a few.

[Chaff]

.
I'm ready to see how the game "looks" in Beta.

After several hours of gawking at the eye candy and overall environment I'll get around to trying out the actual nuts and bolts of the new gameplay. I wonder how different it will "feel".

[Kran De Loy]

Aye, for now my brother and I are keeping ourselves busy with Nuclear Dawn and Tribes...

Uhhhhhhhhhh I have such a rageing hard on for PS2 I can't wait much longer. :cry:

Ugh I wish Smed would get around to dumping those details about the new PSS1 Partnership deal.

[texico]

Why can't they just do both? Would it really be SO much agro to add the AMS, an extra vehicle, in, considering how much support it gets? There's no problem about having two vehicles on Spawn duty. They both can occupy very different roles.

Galaxy can be the main heart of an empire's presence on the battlefield, where most of the troops spawn who want to be involved in the general offensive/defensive.

The AMS can be the stealthier smaller-scale spawn point used to attack and defend specific targets (like the backdoor in PS2) and be used by small squads and outfits trying to do low-key assaults on specific locations.


What's the problem?!?!?!

[Knocky]

Please let it go, there will be no AMS's.

[texico]

Please let it go, there will be no AMS's.


If there's one thing you can guarantee, it's that player's aren't going to let it go if they're unhappy about something. They're either going to complain/ask for changes and/or be disgruntled, or else leave and play something else.