Should the Sunderer act as a spawn point?

[DviddLeff]

As we know the Gal is the deployable spawn point, with the Sundy bus being a vehicle repair and rearm station.

But I feel that the Sunderer should be able to act as a spawn point, perhaps sacrificing its vehicle support role to do so - as a customisation option for players.

Vote!

[Figment]

Why make the Sunderer into an AMS if you can just make an AMS model instead? Or rather, a fully customizable support vehicle instead which you can "build" forward bases with? For instance: radar jamming, AWACS radar station, spawnpoint, repair bay, etc. Hell, why not have vehicles that can deploy themselves as bunkers or mini towers for snipers and scouts for all I care?

Why cramp every role into a vehicle that's designed to do something COMPLETELY different?

I don't like the mixing of the offensive and repair roles of the Sunderer for instance, because that makes it "too easy" to setup something with just two Sunderers. Some effort, interaction and reliance on others would be nice. Having all these combination roles drastically reduces interaction between (groups of) players because everyone becomes self-sufficient pretty fast.

I mean, are they that desperate for texture and memory space while they make handmade maps of 64 square kilometer miles?

[Rat]

I dont know if the sunderer is the answer, but I do think there will be a need for another spawn vehicle, especially if the galaxy will only be able to pulled at specific facilities.

[Baneblade]

The Gal can fly, the Sunderer needs to be more utility focused. As it stands, the Sunderer will end up being as popular as before it had an EMP in PS1.

Make the Sunderer a deployable forward operating base.

[Sgt Shultz]

As we know the Gal is the deployable spawn point, with the Sundy bus being a vehicle repair and rearm station.

But I feel that the Sunderer should be able to act as a spawn point, perhaps sacrificing its vehicle support role to do so - as a customisation option for players.

Vote!

I can somewhat see the parallel between the sunderer and the galaxy, but frankly I think we need to understand the tradeoff between ground transport and air transport. Does it have a longer timer, does it cost more resources, etc etc etc.

This might actually be a feature for a constructable forward base platform similar to what Evilpig had discussed.

[headcrab13]

I can somewhat see the parallel between the sunderer and the galaxy, but frankly I think we need to understand the tradeoff between ground transport and air transport. Does it have a longer timer, does it cost more resources, etc etc etc.

This might actually be a feature for a constructable forward base platform similar to what Evilpig had discussed.

The Galaxy will be faster and more maneuverable, so even if they could both act as spawn points I think we'll see the Gal in use more often.

That being said, the Sundy is essentially the ground version of a Gal, so I'm certainly not against giving it the same capability!

[kaffis]

The Sunderer needs *unique* things to boost its appeal as a transport (since, of course, flying is almost always > ground-bound), not duplicated features stolen off its biggest rival.

[Kipper]

My assumption is that the Galaxy is there to hot-drop the first attackers, then land a little way out and act as forward operating base to stream new troops into the fray at a reasonable clip, while trying to avoid coming under too much direct attack.

Meanwhile the Sunderer will be more disposable and as a result, try to push further forward and act much more offensively and closer to the target.

I don't recall hearing that Sunderers would be spawn points, I thought they were just for re-arming and vehicle repairs?

[Truemedic]

The Sunderer needs *unique* things to boost its appeal as a transport (since, of course, flying is almost always > ground-bound), not duplicated features stolen off its biggest rival.

I agree with this and I will add some of my own to it.

Having multiple vehicles with respawn points reduces the value of living considerably in my opinion.

I understand the times have changed but a lot of what I felt back when I played in 2005-2007 is that you either spawn on an AMS, Tower or base, or took a vehicle there. When you died it sucked because you knew you could have a long journey to the battlefield again if your AMS was down but that only made you fight harder if you knew your respawns were down.

If the sunderer were to have a respawn mechanic as well then that would bring up the total number of respawns at a base to potentially 3. Squad leader, Galaxy, Sunderer.

This not only puts more pressure on the defending team as enemy reinforcements are nearly endless with 3 respawns (I understand spawning on a squad leader is limited but that's not the point). But players will simply throw themselves at the the capture zones without caring.

I can understand how nice it would be to have a land vehicle with a respawn but with the galaxy in play, I'm pretty sure this is why the dev team made it this way.

[SniperSteve]

I am all for keeping roles of vehicles separate. So I voted 'No'.

[Ruffdog]

Voted No. I think a force should be respawning in fewer places not more.

I dont know if the sunderer is the answer, but I do think there will be a need for another spawn vehicle, especially if the galaxy will only be able to pulled at specific facilities.

I think it is a good thing if Gals are the only mobile spawn. Less spawn points means more requirement for APCs. And APCs rock imo. Troops are needed to get territory right? APCs separate the men from the boys in terms of tactical play. Air cover + tanks to go with your fully loaded Sundies = win.

..even if they could both act as spawn points I think we'll see the Gal in use more often.

The Gal I think should be like PS1 in terms of where and how often drivers can pull them (see my point above).

Just my opinions.

[Kipper]

I think trees should act as spawn points. Seriously though, don't we have enough spawn points already? Dying should be more of a penalty than a minor inconvenience.

They want people to be spending less time looking for a fight than and more time fighting, I can see the logic. If you die in anything worth resources, you've lost those. Maybe even if you spawned grenades etc, they're gone too?

That said, if spawning around an objective is too easy and you're back in it too quickly - its difficult to see how you will get a decisive result in an individual battle since people will be back almost as soon as they've been killed, making it hard to push forward / drive people back through cutting down their numbers.

[Baneblade]

I'm not really convinced the Gal should be a respawn. If anything it should be the Sunderer that gets it.

[IMMentat]

more vehicles driving around and less footzegs from hundreds of local spawnpoints please.
Grinding down the opposition with limitless quantities of local spawnpoints was one of the less appealing factors of the geriatric/later planetside1 gameplay. Though this was mostly down to multiple AMS vehicles being hard find, let alone take down once you were getting pressed back inside your own buildings.

I want to see loaded sunderers supported by ground vehicles and aircraft zipping along the continent to take on bases, towers and resource nodes.
Galaxies by their nature are big, obvious and less-common (I assume a foothold/dropship centre will remain a requirement) making them perfect foci for attack and defence.

Keep the battles mobile, the troops on the playing field (instead of tied up in a spawn matrix) and let a well played defence earn itself a breather for wiping out a valuable spawnpoint. Teamwork and co-ordination should be the deciding factors of victory, not unlimited local respawns.

[Kipper]

Keep the battles mobile, the troops on the playing field (instead of tied up in a spawn matrix) and let a well played defence earn itself a breather for wiping out a well defended spawnpoint. teamwork and co-ordination should be the deciding factors of victory, not unlimited local respawns.

Yes, this... Because I want defenders in a base to literally be up against it and calling players (via voice or missions or whatever) from other regions to do air-strikes against spawn points.

I expect getting reinforcement from other directions to protect a base be a common tactic, rather than people inside of said base trying to push out.

[kaffis]

more vehicles driving around and less footzegs from hundreds of local spawnpoints please.

Grinding down the opposition with limitless quantities of local spawnpoints was one of the less appealing factors of the geriatric/later planetside1 gameplay. Though this was mostly down to multiple AMS vehicles being hard find, let alone take down once you were getting pressed back inside your own buildings.

I want to see loaded sunderers supported by ground vehicles and aircraft zipping along the continent to take on bases, towers and resource nodes.
Galaxies by their nature are big, obvious and less-common (I assume a foothold/dropship centre will remain a requirement) making them perfect foci for attack and defence.

Keep the battles mobile, the troops on the playing field (instead of tied up in a spawn matrix) and let a well played defence earn itself a breather for wiping out a valuable spawnpoint. Teamwork and co-ordination should be the deciding factors of victory, not unlimited local respawns.
This well-written post sums things up perfectly.

I don't want Sunderers to be spawn points because I'd rather have a Sunderer *loaded up* and rolling to a target than parked outside. In the first case, the Sunderer driver is performing an active delivery duty; he's an active participant in getting the troops to the battle. In the second case, the Sunderer driver is nothing more than an AMS driver -- finding a handy spot to park his vehicle and then leaving it there, or maybe setting up a defense of his parked spawn point. This makes him a passive participant and nothing more than a logistics delivery system that's run and done.

[Figment]

I don't want either Sunderer OR Galaxy as spawnpoint... I want an AMS.

If you feel there were too many spawnpoints, enlarging the interference radius would have sufficed.

Being able to attack a base from more than one angle while also not being predictable is much more important than being able to defend a base by nuking a single target the size of a small star system (it's not like you could actually miss a grounded, stationary Galaxy) because that would simply kill any assault too easily.

Divide roles between vehicles to create teamwork beyond your own group or unit.


Those that complain a Sund would just drive up and be left behind apparently hate the Galaxy and ANY OTHER STATIONARY SPAWNPOINT for the exact same reason. If not, they're hypocrites.

The last three posters seem to want zergs to come from a single origin point so they can easily farm them take out the SINGLE enemy target you can't miss and then wait for the next. The less spawnpoints, the more farming and the less likely it becomes a base is taken. Defensive play should not be encouraged too much because it's probably going to be easy enough using choke points as is, especially in massive fights. If you only think from the perspective from the defender, then yes, less spawn points is good. From the attacking perspective, the lack of options would be utterly appaling and could even make people leave the game if they get farmed too much and have no sense of progression.

Less options is also the death to imaginative and creative gameplay. And that limits replayability significantly.

[Tatwi]

I am all for keeping roles of vehicles separate. So I voted 'No'.

That's how I looked at it as well. "Homogenization" of classes really watered down the variety (and as a consequence, the fun) of WoW and think that the suggested change to PS2 would take away from the strategy of the game rather than add to it.

[Kipper]

The last three posters seem to want zergs to come from a single origin point so they can easily farm them take out the SINGLE enemy target you can't miss and then wait for the next.

That certainly isn't what I said, nor is it how I understood the other posts.

I expect attacks to to come in force and play cleverly, of course - depending on the nature of a fortification, I'd expect attackers to need to outnumber defenders something like 3:1 because defenders are dug in, have walls and turrets etc.

The problem that was being pointed or is that if you respawn too close to the action then being taken out of it didn't really have an effect. If both teams are effectively not losing numbers, because they're back up so quickly, how does one team break the deadlock?

However it is, I look forward to epic carnage :)

[IMMentat]

Being able to attack a base from more than one angle while also not being predictable is much more important than being able to defend a base by nuking a single target the size of a small star system.

I agree but allow me to raise some counterpoints.

AMS' typically forced attacking forces to become infantry only foot-zergs, their relative safety as spawn points meant that there was little need for true support or defences as they were more likley to draw attention to the AMS than keep them safe.
Troops have a LOT less movement potential than the average vehicle resulting in several conga-lines running straight at the intended target.

The average base/tower was not often cracked by a footzerg of rexo and agile though the ground floor entrances.
Usually, a few MBT, reavers, maxes and/or an organised squad would turn up and force a gap in the defences. The footzerg would then stroll in and start blocking/capturing chokepoints one at a time through weight of numbers.
In brief the tactic was to set up some satalite AMS', lock the enemy inside their own doors, move some AMS into ther CY/tower shadow then force a hole in the defences using a few breach specialists.
Forcing more players to drive to each objective encourages more sunderers which in turn encourages more MAX suits at each target (assuming MAXES still require base terminals to spawn), not to mention all the firepower additional vehicles provide to the attackers.

In terms of the sunderer.
Taking over the lodestars repair (and I assume re-arm) features gives players an excelent reason to bring a few along to any party (especially if one parked near to a galaxy would provide automated repairs as well as helping maintain its defensive vehicle screen). By having mobile repairs tied to a ground vehicle and not a flying brick, the support vehicle will never be far from those that need its help and its easier to move and conceal a ground vehicle than it is an aircraft.

On galaxies
Most galaxies were used as one-way-trip vehicles.
A squad/platoon/outfit would spawn one, fill one, declare a target then mass bail when arrived. The galaxy itself would usually end up smashing into the ground or an inconvenient leaf wherin it would explode and end its brief existance.
Public galaxies were both rare and a bad idea due to a Gal being a high profile vehicle, with no set route and long long repair times, 1-2 airchav could easily bring enough pain to prevent more than a couple of journeys from happening before the gal got destroyed/abandoned.
The spawn points provide galaxies with much needed utility and if i read the info provided correctly. Deployed galaxies will have more defensive options (guns for certain, shileds as a possibe sidegrade?) than an in-flight Gal.

In the end its not the number of spawnpoints but the laziness that "safe" local spawnpoints inspire in attackers that I have a problem with.

[Noivad]

:evil:I voted No. A lot of good thought in most of the posts. I do not like the combining of Vehicle type roles in PS2. I think it cuts down on teamwork. Every vehicle in PS1 has a role to fill and did it very well for skilled players. For those of you who said certain vehicles were not effective in PS1, you probally were just not skilled enough, organized enough to play them effectively. Veterans know that some people were skilled enough to keep their vehicles up for more then an hour, while in constant engagements with the enemy.

The Devs should do to Vehicle Roles what they are doing with the classes. Keep the roles seperate. Keep them more team oriented. Stop catering to the solo player experience. Anyone can get that from any other FPS game.

Its been said by higby I think, that there are up to 4 or 6 capture areas inside bases now and they are at least 4 time larger then ps1 bases. Some of them with their own spawn points that an empire can capture. That means two or more empires spawning at a base may be possible.

If the devs stick to their statements, then, vehicles will not be able to get into infantry fighting areas of bases, ie courtyards, and terrain will prevent some or all vehicles from entering certain areas. There will be fighting on the sides of cliffs. And there will be up and down fighting. There will be jump packs that let you fly. It can take 15 mins to go from the basement to the roof in some bases. They have elevators. The maps are huge. With multiple terrains. Multiple weather effects, Multiple lighting effects.

Stop thinking small. PS1 was big in its day but not anymore. PS2 is coming to town. I played project Entropia and it took me a month, 6 to 8 hrs a day playing to get to all of the bases in that game, with their seemless maps by foot. Now it has vehicles and it takes a lot less time to move around their maps, if you can afford it.

In Sony's DCUO the maps are very big as well. You can fly in that game and its amazing moving around cities, with multi story buildings like New York City. The custominization in that game is extensive as well. and well done. Its FTP by SONY, give it a try.

In PS 1 on searhuse for instance it could take at east 20 mins to drive from top left to bottom right of the map. It was faster going to Santuary and waiting on a shuttle to drop then driving. Even if it takes just 15 mins on ps1 to cross the map then thats equlivent to 1 hour of game play time its gonna take to cross the new map in ps2. It 64 square kilometers.

So gals are ams tools for that, I can see their purpose in that role. Flying dilevery ams service. I still would perfer the Gal and Loady one with a skyguatd and the other with an ams then the all in one gal now. Are you really gonna drive a sunderer or an ams that distance. Probally not. An ATV would be smarter if you have to go by vehicle, and an ATV can probally go where Tanks and sunderers can't. Of course the mosquito will still be my favorite for rapid deployment and will be required for my members to have the basic one, just to get around as a rapif deplotment vehicle.

I believe its been stated that everyone will have access to all basic vehicles, just won't be able to do all the specialized stuff if you don't train them up. There is no cert system like PS1.

So Sunderers as an ams , on a plain or open grassland repairing Tanks on the move to a base located on grasslands. I can see that happening, but I would perfer a seperate vhicle like the Loadstar to play that repair role.

Yes its ugly, but large Outfits did use it to transport AMS and Tanks to a battle, you bet your ass they did. Of course the majority of the people making statements, give the impression, that they did not play PS1 in its hay day. You know the player type, the guys who quit one game for another game, that just came out. Yypical solo player, who left for BF3, who unsubed because they wanted to try something else like WOW. I was with an Outfit that did just that.

iI am even ashamed to say that went most of the outfits left ps1 to go to other games that I allowed myself to go into another game waiting for Global agenda to come out, the game that would repalce Planetside. LMAO. We went to EVE online, but a lot of my people did not go and were absorbed by other outfits that stayed in PS1. Anout 6 months later I did return to PS1 and have been playing since. I till sub it, and there are still good fights to be found.

The ULTRA alliance had one unit that specialized in Support Roles. Its all they did. Fixing and Transporting stuff.

Of course that was when ULTRA used to pop Lock 2 planets at a time, and still have reserves hitting other planets / conts. Its amazing what you can do with 300 people on a Team speak server at once.

And the hate tells that ULTRA would get for locking poor solo players off a planet - tsk tsk.

Of course we could ask the Devs to make just one aircraft and one ground vehicle, that could do everything and a Solo player could operate either one of them an be real uber.

Wait lets make a ground vehicle fly, put tank guns on it, air defense guns, anti infantry guns, allow it to carry another like it in its trunk, transport and respawn everyone and then we can eliminate teamwork all together for vehicles.


Yes the SOLO players will love it!!!!!!!: evil: I want my tank to do everything. I want my gal to do everything. I want my aircraft to do everything. I want my Sunderer to do everthing. SOLO players Unite. :evil:

[Zulthus]

The Sunderer should be something like the MCV from Command and Conquer.

For anyone who hasn't played any of the games, it looked like this (I couldn't find better pictures)
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/864/623994-mobile_construction_vechile_super.jpg

And transformed into this:
http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/10/9108/Allied-ConYard.2.png

That should be either a different vehicle or a Sunderer variant imo. Basically a minimum size vehicle pad, a couple equipment terminals and a respawn tube. It would be powered by resources that get refilled by an ANT, so that it couldn't be functional indefinitely.

[Malorn]

I agree with Kevmo's reasoning. If the Sunderer was an AMS it would lose it's value as a base crashing action vehicle. People would want to protect them and not "waste" them by driving into a hot zone where they might actually be useful. And most importantly, if you can spawn from one you have no real need to actually be transported in it. You can wait for it to get to its destination and then spawn at it.

I like how the Sunderer is currently designed. It can support other vehicles in a convoy and when a push isn't practical it can play the support role. And for offensives you pile in and go put concentrated force at a capture point. Seems like a lot of fun to me. Last thing I want to deal with is people whining because you used a sunderer for a transport role when people really wanted an AMS.

AMS fits better with a Galaxy.

[The Kush]

It should stay how it is

[nomotog]

No spawn needed, just give it more armor. The sunder is a shock and aw vehicle. It's meant to be a real big alpha strike not a slow grind like the gal is.

[Figment]

Btw, if people think the Galaxy is a suitable spawnpoint, let's see you fly a Galaxy over a base and then land it somewhere outside it (somewhere you'd normally place an AMS) and see how long it lasts. In fact, place it right next to an AMS to simulate the spawnpoint and see how long each lasts.

Then do the same with a Sunderer. Just park each right outside a cloakfield, in full view and use its turrets to defend it. I'm quite sure the AMS owners will "love" you.

[Xyntech]

I don't have a problem with overlap for things like AA/AV/AI, but overlap for something as specialized as spawning, especially when the Sunderer is already a lot like a more armored by slower and landlocked version of the Galaxy, just seems like it would be more of the same.

The Sunderer should be something like the MCV from Command and Conquer.

For anyone who hasn't played any of the games, it looked like this (I couldn't find better pictures)
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/864/623994-mobile_construction_vechile_super.jpg

And transformed into this:
http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/10/9108/Allied-ConYard.2.png

That should be either a different vehicle or a Sunderer variant imo. Basically a minimum size vehicle pad, a couple equipment terminals and a respawn tube. It would be powered by resources that get refilled by an ANT, so that it couldn't be functional indefinitely.

Instead of deploying into a base, what if it could be used as an engineering vehicle to build structures too large for an ordinary engineer. It could build spawn points, without actually becoming a spawn point itself, along with being able to build many other large deployables.

[Kipper]

Has it actually been said that you can spawn on a Sunderer? I know it has been revealed of the Galaxy but... I only recall re-arming mentioned for the truck.

PS1 bases were big squares of walls with a complex inside which ultimately required you to be on foot to capture.

PS2 bases with their size and their multiple capture points will mean that you can roll right up to some of the capture points in vehicles and expect the enemy to do the same, and you want people to take their tanks and Sundy's into the fray, frankly.

I don't think people will be landing many Galaxies right at capture points because they are bigger targets and more of a defensive structure, their guns are to keep people away from coming to it, not so that it can bring pain to them - thats why it has to deploy. It brings pain indirectly by dropping and spawning troops.

[Figment]

My sarcasmometer is tingling. :o

[KTNApollo]

I wasn't aware that Sunderers acted as class changing/rearm stations and vehicle repair stations. Source?

[Kipper]

I wasn't aware that Sunderers acted as class changing/rearm stations and vehicle repair stations. Source?

Official site (http://www.planetside2.com/news/jan172012vehicle)

The Sunderer is a massive 12 man armored truck designed to break through or "sunder" an enemy’s defensive line and deliver troops safely to a strategic location behind enemy lines. Its heavy armor allows the Sunderer to withstand large amounts of focused enemy fire giving it a much longer life expectancy. Its powerful engine and heavy mass also allows it to push almost any other vehicle out of its way, including tanks. Finally, the Sunderer has several support capabilities supplying medical supplies to troops and ammo to troops and vehicles.

To me, that says re-arm and heal, not respawn. Nothing about class changing.

[Gandhi]

I think if we need a ground AMS too then we should add a ground AMS, not tack another role onto the Sunderer (which already seems to have multiple roles). I really don't want to see one vehicle filling the troop transport, mobile repair, mobile rearm and mobile respawn roles all at the same time.

And there's something to be said for having single role vehicles. In PS1 if I see an AMS I know exactly what it does. If I see a Galaxy, I know exactly what it'll be doing around my base. In PS2 if I see a Sunderer will I know what it's doing? Will there be any way to tell by looking if a Sundy is specced out for troop transport only? Or mobile repair only? Or some combination? Will I be limping behind a friendly Sunderer hoping for a repair only to realize after 30 seconds that he's actually specced for transport?

When I see an enemy Galaxy coming in, will I be able to tell he's specced for troop transport before he starts pouring guys all over my base? Maybe he sacrificed most of his transport ability to beef up his respawn and rearm abilities, how should I know?

I honestly liked the single role vehicles better, but I do understand that combining roles cuts down on the number of models and textures. So if that's the price we have to pay for performance I'm ok with it, just so long as I can tell at a glance what the thing I'm fighting can actually do to me.

[Kipper]

When I see an enemy Galaxy coming in, will I be able to tell he's specced for troop transport before he starts pouring guys all over my base? Maybe he sacrificed most of his transport ability to beef up his respawn and rearm abilities, how should I know?

I'm gonna guess that you'll identify roles by visuals. The vehicles will all have a common chassis which is what gives the vehicle its name, and then a module area which will make it look different, and do different stuff.

You'll know a tank is AV because you'll see a distinct 'tank gun' turret, or AI because it'll have a chaingun or something instead.

I assume a troop carrying Sundy will have little window-slits and back doors, and a healing or re-arm sundy to have some sort of tech console on the side instead. The cab and wheels will look the same.

Likewise a vehicle carrying Galaxy will probably be slightly different shape in the body section, fatter with no windows perhaps, while the cockpit/wings etc all remain the same.

[Gandhi]

Likewise a vehicle carrying Galaxy will probably be slightly different shape in the body section, fatter with no windows perhaps, while the cockpit/wings etc all remain the same.
If that's the case I hope you can tell from a distance too. For example as a Mossie knowing whether that Lightning down there is fitted for AA is a pretty important bit of info.

But anyway this is pretty obvious stuff, I'm sure they've thought about it already.

[Xyntech]

I've been thinking. It's been mentioned a lot that Galaxies won't make good spawn points due to their higher visibility and lower survivability. One thing I have been thinking is that Galaxies acting as spawn points may find its greatest use as a means to more easily load up a Galaxy to do a drop.

In PS1, the pilot had to park at a friendly base, then the players had to spawn somewhere (relatively) near by, run to the galaxy, then load up and wait for others to do the same.

In PS2, perhaps the pilot will be able to park a safe distance away from enemy lines, but not necessarily at a base or other spawn point since the Galaxy itself is the spawn. Put up a mission letting players know you are loading up for a drop on x target. Players interested can spawn there and load up much faster than in PS1.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that the Galaxy may not even end up getting used like an AMS a lot of the time.

Looking at it from that point of view, there would seem to be a little more room for crossover.

A Galaxy would spawn players more to facilitate hot dropping them, while conversely a Sunderer could carry passengers to better help secure an area to set up a forward spawn point. Sort of polar opposites in how they each could use their passenger slots and spawning abilities.

I still don't think I'm sold on the Sunderer being a straight up spawn point, but I'm warming to the idea.

As of yet, the Galaxy is the only confirmed deployable spawn point though.

[Hamma]

I would say no - at least not with what we know currently. Hard to say how I will feel once I get in the game though.

[IMMentat]

In PS2, perhaps the pilot will be able to park a safe distance away from enemy lines, but not necessarily at a base or other spawn point since the Galaxy itself is the spawn. Put up a mission letting players know you are loading up for a drop on x target. Players interested can spawn there and load up much faster than in PS1.

I like this idea #puts on a pirate hat# ;)

[Zulthus]

I think you are on to something here. Why don't we just have one basic vehicle cert tree and as you progress into it we can have the basic vehicle transform into a multitude of things. On demand transform into a Galaxy, Reaver, Sunderer, tower, or even a base. Just a click of the mouse and it can be anything in the game. I'm digging it.

You completely missed the point of the idea... but nice try. A lot of people have said that the Sunderer should be able to deploy into a forward base, and this immediately popped in my head after reading them.

You really seemed to have pulled that out of your ass, I never even hinted at an idea of having an all-in-one vehicle.

[Garem]

I'm not sure the "separation of roles" argument is particularly strong in this case. Having a tougher, slower, and ground-based spawning vehicle is certainly a vehicle playing a very different role than a weaker, faster, air-capable spawning vehicle. Sometimes one will be better than the other, and there will certainly be some overlap, but overall they play two totally different roles.

For a short form of that argument- look at the Lightening and the MBTs. They play virtually identical roles. Nobody is bitching about that for a reason; they're distinct enough from one another to make choosing one or the other a strategic choice. Airborne or ground-based spawner is an even more important choice than this (one that may make or break a base siege).


Modulation is a big part of the game and vehicles. The flip argument to "bring back the AMS" is - why? The truck-like vehicle is already in the game. Modulate it.


There's a significant bonus to letting Sunderers have a spawning function- more spawn points mean the battles will stay bigger for longer. More people will be able to use them, since not everyone will want to cert into piloting Galaxies. Galaxies will retain a massive advantage over Sunderers; they can FLY.

This may not be a necessary change, but it would still be a good change.

[Zulthus]

I wasn't really directing that at you but at a higher power. They seem to have an affinity for multipurpose vehicles and I don't necessarily agree with it.

Well in that case I agree with you. I just responded to what seemed like a sarcastic mock.

[Retrograde]

"You're screaming along the jungle, Ride of the Valkyries blaring on the radio. You come screaming over the top with chain guns keeping barney pinned down. Flying tree scraping low to get to a drop point and then DROP DROP DROP. Your strike team drops into the base to unleash hell. Move out to get back to base before your bullet ridden ship drops from the sky, quick repair, then back again into the breach."

"You brought the one thing every battle needed: Reinforcements."

Making the galaxy a spawn point is a mistake and a sore spot for me. It's missing the concept completely of why I enjoyed flying it.

I always felt like a Huey pilot in 'nam. (a bit much, but hey) or like a AC-130U Spectre.

Here's what I had in mind when I was flying gals.
AC-130U Spooky - YouTube


The Galaxy is infantry airlift aka Special Forces style & logistics. x

My suggestion would be to switch the spawn point on the Sunderer, making it an all purpose utility vehicle that's used for battle support. A moble intelligence command center. Give it radar, repair, resupply, satellite uplinks for nearby orbital strikes. The whole 9 yards. Command post primary, transport secondary.

Then let galaxies airlift them.

http://s17.postimage.org/j9lff16zf/756px_070126_F_8732_E_600.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/j9lff16zf/)

http://s17.postimage.org/f1qn6a5jv/c_130_4.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/f1qn6a5jv/)

http://s17.postimage.org/67zqp6il7/c_130_18.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/67zqp6il7/)

[Toppopia]

Now... can we use the galaxy like that and sit high in the sky raining fire down on all that oppose you? Like in BF3, the only time i used a transport helicopter was when i had a friend to use the side gun, and i would circle the map like the good pilot i was, not the idiots that were like "Oooh, helicopter, *fly towards enemy, bail out and condemn all on board a fiery demise*" and in that match i got no kills but my friend got over 30 i belive, that is what a support aircraft should be like. That also reminds me of the black hawk from Battlefield Bad Company, those were the good days...

[Kipper]

Now... can we use the galaxy like that and sit high in the sky raining fire down on all that oppose you? Like in BF3, the only time i used a transport helicopter was when i had a friend to use the side gun, and i would circle the map like the good pilot i was

Did that on BFBC2 as well, had a random guy in the side gun, we flew for the entire round, circling just far enough away to make the chain-gun suppressive (and get some good kills on idiots who came out in the open) and allow most incoming RPGs to miss or be avoided.

Must have been in the air for about 20 minutes, same helicopter - went back to base about 3 times to repair and re-arm, and turned the tide of the battle for the ground troops.

IMO - you need to understand what the role of each craft is in relation to current aircraft. As I understand it:

Galaxy = Chinook (Insertion/extraction)
Liberator = A-10 Thunderbolt (Close air support)
ES Aircraft = Eurofighter or equiv. (Multi role intercept/patrol/tactical strike)

I suppose whats missing from that is a Blackhawk type that you can circle and suppress with, but you can probably fly the Liberator or a Galaxy in that way, if they have usable side-mounted guns that can be fired in-flight?

[Xyntech]

I suppose whats missing from that is a Blackhawk type that you can circle and suppress with, but you can probably fly the Liberator or a Galaxy in that way, if they have usable side-mounted guns that can be fired in-flight?

Perhaps this would leave room for a Galaxy Gunship type of variant while not infringing on the Liberator.

It may just end up being the Liberator that gets that role though.

[IMMentat]

Gal gunship would make more sense though, its already been done once and modular design lives for that sort of thing.
Especially as a lib should not command the sort of firepower that the gal gunship used to it is a bit small to be carrying 2+ large ground supression cannon/launcheers/artillery weapons.
The Liberator was changed from a bomber to a gunship to make it more active for the gunner. The end result firepower-wise is supposed to be the same
This leads me to believe its more of an Apache/hind than a galaxy gunner style supression platform.
I think the new liberator setup will be missiles for the pilot, Big chain-gun/cannon for the former bomber, and a pew pew defensive turret (hopefully a bank of 2-3 linked weapons instead of that single 20?mm) for the protector.



I agree with kippers assessment of comparable roles as well.

TBH I probably agree that a ground vehicle makes for a better mobile spawnpoint, but the sunderer should be driving around full of players, laying supressive fire and running over squishies, not sitting still endlessly spawning zerglings. A revamped AMS with a shield instead of a cloak would suit me also, invis worked just a bit too well when there were 2 or more AMS' parked locally, only the obvious ones tended to get taken down, and even then it would be an OS or airchav swarm that did it.

[Sabot]

It's not the same lib as in PS... it's new one, presumably a much larger version than in the original. They said their plan for the lib is for it to be like a AC 130 gunship instead of a WW2 era bomber. I think it'll represent it's new role very well.

[Kipper]

It's not the same lib as in PS... it's new one, presumably a much larger version than in the original. They said their plan for the lib is for it to be like a AC 130 gunship instead of a WW2 era bomber. I think it'll represent it's new role very well.

Yeah I got that, but I imagined the new configuration to lend itself to picking armoured targets, swooping in and using the heavy gun to take it apart like the vulcan cannon on an A-10.

By contrast, a Blackhawk style would not act against heavy armour but against infantry - and not against a picked target but targets of opportunity. It wouldn't dive towards them, but stay up high spotting and keeping heads down.

[Xyntech]

I would much rather have circling Liberators or Galaxies circling around a target instead of having fighters hovering in place camping like in PS1.

[Kipper]

I would much rather have circling Liberators or Galaxies circling around a target instead of having fighters hovering in place camping like in PS1.

Totally agree. Hovering is for takeoff, landing or air braking to force enemy air to overshoot you. Hovering low over an active battlefield should be death bless you're very sure that there are no vehicles or AA infantry about.

[Xyntech]

Maybe they could make aircraft engines extra vulnerable to small arms fire while in hover mode, so you can still have spam, but even infantry without AV would pose a serious threat if you did so.

Aircraft guns could be made slightly more powerful yet still be balanced if they were mostly limited to strafing runs.

Not to force people to play a certain way, just to give it a downside. Aircav is deadly, and it should reward higher skilled pilots more than just any random killwhore.

I say this as a more average skilled pilot.

[ratfusion]

I'd rather see a super-AMS return that can be customized for lots of roles as a mini-base, further enhanced by engineering.

I completely agree that the galaxy should only be a respawn point when airborne. Right now its a super vehicle that obsoletes most ground vehicles, in the name of faster action. Respawn while airborne makes it a tradeoff, more dangerous to keep flying for convenient location.

[Marinealver]

I think the sundeer will have some limits like you can chose between the Base Crashing EMP wave, the AMS Mobile spawn station or the loady vehicle rearm and repair but not all 3.

They might keep the AMS especially if there is a tech limit as a more of a hidden camp.

[Sabot]

Yeah I got that, but I imagined the new configuration to lend itself to picking armoured targets, swooping in and using the heavy gun to take it apart like the vulcan cannon on an A-10.

By contrast, a Blackhawk style would not act against heavy armour but against infantry - and not against a picked target but targets of opportunity. It wouldn't dive towards them, but stay up high spotting and keeping heads down.

Yeah but just because it is "like" an AC 130, doesn't meant it IS one... It's just a comparision to what exisit irl. What it actually does, how its used and what weapons it have we'll see once beta is here... or if they release info on it in detail.

[Kipper]

Yeah but just because it is "like" an AC 130, doesn't meant it IS one...

Of course. People will work out how best to use a vehicle, the point is there'll be multiple ways but over time, word will spread on what appears to be the most effective.

If the liberator artillery thing has a lot of turning angle (is it a belly-gun?) then it can circle high up. If its narrow, then it will need to overfly the target directly.

Likewise, if its accurate at range or high splash damage, you'll circle with it, and if its low spash/high CoF, you'll have to get closer in to be effective.

....and if the whole sidegrade/modular thing means it can be either, then people will spec it in different ways which I fully support :)

[Marinealver]

"You're screaming along the jungle, Ride of the Valkyries blaring on the radio. You come screaming over the top with chain guns keeping barney pinned down. Flying tree scraping low to get to a drop point and then DROP DROP DROP. Your strike team drops into the base to unleash hell. Move out to get back to base before your bullet ridden ship drops from the sky, quick repair, then back again into the breach."


"IF YOU SHOOT AND THEY MOVE,

THEN THEY'RE N. C.!

IF YOU SHOOT AND THEY DON'T MOVE,

THEN THEY'RE WELL DISCIPLINED N. C.!(basicly TR)"

"You know what, you should do a story about me....

cuase I'm so damn great!"