I think that not having AMSs is a pretty big mistake

[RNFB]

Galaxies just don't have the stealth capabilities of an AMS... they're huge, and have to fly.

Having smaller trucks that could be put into position without the enemy spotting them to setup forward spawn points between facilities for infantry was a very important part of PlanetSide. Without them, I see a lot of having to either wait for a medic (may not be possible a lot of the time outdoors) or run all the way back from a static spawn point(grabbing an ATV where possible) when your squad spawn is on cooldown... because Galaxies will not last long as spawn points because it will be so easy to spot where they get deployed, and it would be far too difficult to fit them in sneakier spots, especially tree-dense areas.

[Bravix]

Galaxies just don't have the stealth capabilities of an AMS... they're huge, and have to fly.

Having smaller trucks that could be put into position without the enemy spotting them to setup forward spawn points between facilities for infantry was a very important part of PlanetSide. Without them, I see a lot of having to either wait for a medic (may not be possible a lot of the time outdoors) or run all the way back from a static spawn point(grabbing an ATV where possible) when your squad spawn is on cooldown... because Galaxies will not last long as spawn points because it will be so easy to spot where they get deployed, and it would be far too difficult to fit them in sneakier spots, especially tree-dense areas.

Understandable, but...

WAIT FOR BETA!

Only way to tell if its going to work or not.

[Soothsayer]

It'll be different, for sure. I don't know that it is a mistake in the game design.

I have heard secondhand that one of the personalities (whomever it may have been) was heard musing about a stealth customization for galaxies, so that's less of an issue.

As for getting a small truck somewhere versus a flying vehicle, I don't think you're on point with that one. A flying anything has more options than a land vehicle regardless of the scale of size differences that we're looking at here.

Finally, in terms of continental design, given that there is a great deal more thought going into the positioning of the bases and surrounding terrain, there will likely be spots that will allow for galaxies to be deployed in useful areas due to the conscious design decisions as to the layout of the entire continent.

[Ironside]

Galaxies just don't have the stealth capabilities of an AMS... they're huge, and have to fly.

Having smaller trucks that could be put into position without the enemy spotting them to setup forward spawn points between facilities for infantry was a very important part of PlanetSide. Without them, I see a lot of having to either wait for a medic (may not be possible a lot of the time outdoors) or run all the way back from a static spawn point(grabbing an ATV where possible) when your squad spawn is on cooldown... because Galaxies will not last long as spawn points because it will be so easy to spot where they get deployed, and it would be far too difficult to fit them in sneakier spots, especially tree-dense areas.

Agreed, the galaxy is to big and will always be on show, i doubt you can get it close to an objective, i always thought the ams worked well, is that just me being a bittervet? ;)

[Electrofreak]

I started out feeling the same way but the more I've thought about it, the more I realized that AMS (and this comes from someone certed in AMS) are part of a problem in PS1. Instead of using combined arms to protect a large, visible spawn point, AMS encourage infantry to simply spawn and zerg towards the objective, relying upon the stealth field to protect the AMS.

The reality is, the lifespan of any AMS pretty much comes down to it being found and then blown up (which is generally not very difficult and is usually just done by OS).

With visible spawn points, combined arms will need to actually set up a defensive perimeter to protect the spawn point. This encourages team play, and that's never a bad thing.

Sure, Galaxies may not last long, but if that's the case, it's the result of poor defense and planning. The benefit of having a static spawn point near the enemy's base should have a cost associated with it. Without that static spawn point, transport vehicles will need to be relied upon to bring infantry to the battle, and that sounds much more dynamic than the never-ending-infantry zerg.

I guess we'll see how it works in Beta!

[Voltar]

we'll probably have to modify the way we deploy them. since it flies, it'll be able to setup a spawn on top of mesas and stuff with a specific loadout of aa for it's 3 (right?) guns so you can defend against the only thing that can reach you.

that's just one scenario where we're at an advantage being airborne. plus, amses aren't really that hard to find for those who are paying attention and asking, "where are all these dudes coming from?"

regardless, it'll be a lot different and we'll see relatively soon.

[PsychoXR-20]

Finally, in terms of continental design, given that there is a great deal more thought going into the positioning of the bases and surrounding terrain, there will likely be spots that will allow for galaxies to be deployed in useful areas due to the conscious design decisions as to the layout of the entire continent.

This would work against the Galaxy more than it would help it. If there are certain areas specifically designed for Galaxies, that's the first area people are going to look if they suspect one to be nearby. Even if they had cloaking capabilities, it would be quite obvious.

Personally I want to see a line of certs that lets people spawn in an airborne Galaxy, and launch out of drop-pods.

Also, just something I just thought of while writing this response, and I'm just brainstorming here. What if a Galaxy that was certed for it, could launch what could be considered the equivalent of an AMS. Essentially a Galaxy pilot could fly over an area, launch this deployable, immovable, forward base that would allow troops to spawn from it, and get equipment from it, and could also include a stealth field like the AMS.

[Electrofreak]

Personally I want to see a line of certs that lets people spawn in an airborne Galaxy, and launch out of drop-pods.

I think this should be possible with Squad spawning, though I could see a cert allowing you to open the Gal to Empire spawning while airborne.

[Rago]

Also Read !

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=44212

Just Conneting Things to Each other.

[RNFB]

As for getting a small truck somewhere versus a flying vehicle, I don't think you're on point with that one. A flying anything has more options than a land vehicle regardless of the scale of size differences that we're looking at here.

Sure, a Galaxy could get up on a hill easier, but a truck can fit nicely in a dense forest so that spawning troops have plenty of cover to use when spilling out.

[QuantumMechanic]

The idea of the new forward spawn vehicle not being stealthy is the point of what the devs are doing here. Not only do you have a hulking ship fly in, land and deploy. But there's no invisible cloaking bubble anymore either.

So this is obviously not some oversight on the dev's part, it's the functionality that they have decided upon.

Like everything else, wait and see how it works in beta.

[Astrok]

Galaxies just don't have the stealth capabilities of an AMS... they're huge, and have to fly.

Having smaller trucks that could be put into position without the enemy spotting them to setup forward spawn points between facilities for infantry was a very important part of PlanetSide. Without them, I see a lot of having to either wait for a medic (may not be possible a lot of the time outdoors) or run all the way back from a static spawn point(grabbing an ATV where possible) when your squad spawn is on cooldown... because Galaxies will not last long as spawn points because it will be so easy to spot where they get deployed, and it would be far too difficult to fit them in sneakier spots, especially tree-dense areas.

Just wait till u can play the game.

maybe ps2 aint made for using ams.

just play the game feel the gameplay and u will know why they let stuff out.ps2 is much more fast paced(more like modern day shooters) then ps1 was.so u cant compare them.
just have patience and see for yourself.

[EvilNinjadude]

If you think that the Areas shown in PS2 were open... a lot of footage was taken in a desert canyon. Of course it's going to be open, using small, plain rocks as cover for a massive, colorful vehicle isn't easy here.

We'll see if it works better in other areas. Until then, wait for beta.

[Rivenshield]

It's my impression that anything that freaking huge will have a hard time surviving on the ground at any distances you might want to run to or from something.

It's also my impression that a constant parade of Gals hovering overhead and generating a rain of fresh paratroopers will destroy gameplay. You could ameliorate this by making it impossible to spawn in a Gal while it was in an enemy SOE... but then how can you use it as a land-based spawn point?

I agree with OP. We need something small and versatile that provides its own camouflage. We need the AMS back in some form or another. But...

...yeah. I also agree with everybody else. We're just going to have to wait until beta. AI won't ruthlessly exploit every advantage that even the devs can't think of.

[GuyFawkes]

Maybe the galaxy in ps2 is much more vulnerable when in flight mode. When deployed it could have its own shield ,making it 2x as hard to take out. Air to air missiles maybe wont lock onto it etc.

Once deployed maybe the guns become active and has some chance to defend itself (with players in gun positions),the driver being able to switch to a gun slot.Add certed cloaking to mix and you could have a tough nut to crack.

[Daemonn]

This discussion might become more suited for the "idea vault" section, but I'll post anyways...

So far, yea, they want us to try their current implementation of mobile spawning - Landed Galaxy and Squad Spawn. I wont talk about flaws or merits of either, but rather I too wouldn't mind playing first and discussing mechanics second.

Now as far as ideas go... I think there's a few ways the galaxy could become the spawn point. Once landed, the driver's cert with the gal allows it to "set up". The ship reconfigures to a very basic arrangement, shields go up, terminals go up, and manned and/or automatic turrets pop up. A further customization would be allowing the driver to cert deeper to make the shields more powerful (or to even add shielding), stealth the whole set up, increase the power, number or type of turrets, and perhaps more. There would be a "pack up" time before it could lift off again or perhaps certs to make it a permanent fixture until destroyed.

Next would be the "Flying Fortress". Galaxy driver can cert his gal as a flying spawn point - players would spawn and occupy the seats (when filled there is a queue). Players would hot drop out at any time (driver can eject anyone in this mode), certs can provide fall speed adjustments or parachute/glider for anyone falling (Hit a button and the chute/glider opens but thats your only run with it... cant reopen after landing.) The galaxy driver could cert to add more passenger seats in addition to gunners. Again, certing deeper into this "spec" could add more guns, shields, armor, defensive flares, etc. Imagine a Galaxy circling high above the field trickling down soldiers - while the gunners fend of swarms of enemy air... Ah I digress.

Spawning in a galaxy in the air I believe is currently implemented or will be and could be tied into squad spawn mechanics... I could have sworn I saw Higby rambling in a video about that. But I also could be wrong.

[Figment]

I started out feeling the same way but the more I've thought about it, the more I realized that AMS (and this comes from someone certed in AMS) are part of a problem in PS1. Instead of using combined arms to protect a large, visible spawn point, AMS encourage infantry to simply spawn and zerg towards the objective, relying upon the stealth field to protect the AMS.

The reality is, the lifespan of any AMS pretty much comes down to it being found and then blown up (which is generally not very difficult and is usually just done by OS).

With visible spawn points, combined arms will need to actually set up a defensive perimeter to protect the spawn point. This encourages team play, and that's never a bad thing.

Sure, Galaxies may not last long, but if that's the case, it's the result of poor defense and planning. The benefit of having a static spawn point near the enemy's base should have a cost associated with it. Without that static spawn point, transport vehicles will need to be relied upon to bring infantry to the battle, and that sounds much more dynamic than the never-ending-infantry zerg.

I guess we'll see how it works in Beta!

Correction, that will DEMAND ZERG play. Teamplay is something else entirely.

[Flaropri]

Or you could have a mod for Sunderer to not transport (as many?) troops but deploy as resupply.

I do think we need to see Beta and how we feel about it though. We may end up liking supply-lines being more difficult to protect/more visible for one thing.

[Figment]

Or you could have a mod for Sunderer to not transport (as many?) troops but deploy as resupply.

I do think we need to see Beta and how we feel about it though. We may end up liking supply-lines being more difficult to protect/more visible for one thing.

Speak for yourselves, if you play spec ops you will hate the new spawnpoint design because it strips you from the element of surprise and chains you to the floor.

Less spawnpoint positions means a more predictable path.

Tha Gal is too unwieldy and unforgiving. Big spawnpoints will probably mean less hiding places, meaning less optimal positions, meaning longer logistical walks from A-B.

Even if it gets a cloakfield, it'll be crap in comparison and will never be able to perform as good as an AMS that is completely built around being a mobile spawnpoint, rather than a role that's been tagged on to something that's by far an airborne transport first and foremost.

[Karrade]

Good point.

If the Sunderer gets a spawn mod at the cost of transport capacity all will be well. Of course this will make it an even bigger target.

Galaxies are too big imho/in my experience to get in anywhere near the base undetected. I am sure people may have done it, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

Also however the consideration is, anyone can cert any vehicle over time, so you'll have more AMS's/Galaxies/Sunderer's than ever before potentially. Imagine 50 spawn points lighting up all around the base - I wonder if the hud spam has been considered with a zoom feature.

-edit
If more spawn points does become the case, it should provide good entry points for more stealth based characters, if they use their brain.

[Figment]

Not really, because AMSes meant more spawnpoint spot options by definition and you being able to determine your own spawning points and routes.

More fixed spawnpoints doesn't help infils because it makes it easier to pin them down inside a building or determine their basic directions.


Especially if infils don't perma cloak because the devs think they're such awesome stealth combatants and not 'infiltrators', that situation gets even worse. :/

I'm not at all optimistic about spec ops and infil game play, as the devs think of everything in action action action firepower firepower firepower from tank driving to spawnpoint to infil game play. I think they're designing it for their own prefered game play style and are semi- or even completely oblivious to the wishes of other players. :/


And watching that MMORPG-Higby-TRay in black ops footage didn't inspire much confidence that they knew what they were doing in combat, tbh. :x

[ringring]

And watching that MMORPG-Higby-TRay in black ops footage didn't inspire much confidence that they knew what they were doing in combat, tbh. :x

I don't think we can draw any conclusions from that, other than the visuals of ps look really dated (also I laughed at TRay moaning about the angle of fire on the sunderer and that the pop gun on the prowler does no damage).

Generally I agree with you Figgy, but this has been discussed at length in an earlier thread and I am all argued out. I'll wait for beta.

[infected]

"wait and see" -trademark

[Figment]

I don't think we can draw any conclusions from that, other than the visuals of ps look really dated (also I laughed at TRay moaning about the angle of fire on the sunderer and that the pop gun on the prowler does no damage).

Well, let's just say they... "didn't quite play it as optimally as possible and found a few specific unit flaws we've been pointing out for eons". <3

But seriously? Just getting killed in a Marauder by an aircav group and picking an AURORA of all things to fight of an air armada? xD

[Tikuto]

Nah. I'm think it's really awesome. The idea of troop's coming out of landed Galaxy is much more attractive and appearing from an invisible bubble. Whoever at SOE PS2 team thought of this 'Galaxy AMS', they thought well.



However, there is something bothering me on something else:

-- 'Galaxy Gunship' - sucks ass (it's a Logistics/Transport ship!)
-- a new warship - new vehicle with its own role (Attacking)
!! (Both share same cool-down timer!)

[Figment]

Nah. I'm think it's really awesome. The idea of troop's coming out of landed Galaxy is much more attractive and appearing from an invisible bubble. Whoever at SOE PS2 team thought of this 'Galaxy AMS', they thought well.

1. PS2:
a. People 'pop' randomly next to a Galaxy out of thin air.
b. They do not get out of the Galaxy, because there are no entry nor exit animations for ANY positions. In fact, there are no working doors.
c. The Galaxy does not have a spawntube visible explaining why people can spawn or deconstruct.

2. PS1:
a. People 'pop' randomly next to an AMS out of thin air.
b. One person could actually 'get out of an AMS' through a door.
c. A spawntube is visible (used to be two) to explain why people spawn there randomly. You could also "enter" the spawntube(s) to deconstruct.

So if you want to argue "believability", then no PS2 is not more intuitive or logical at all. And it's not like it's more logical that these players would fit in a Galaxy that still can only carry a squad, just because it's a little bit bigger. In both cases the disbelief is suspended by the presence of sci-fi respawn tech lore.

Additional difference? In PS2 you'll get one shot sniped or at least immediately targeted from distance after spawning while getting your bearings or loading the game, while in PS1 the invisible bubble gave you some temporary protection.




You should probably perform your analyses again more objectively.

[Xaine]

I started out feeling the same way but the more I've thought about it, the more I realized that AMS (and this comes from someone certed in AMS) are part of a problem in PS1. Instead of using combined arms to protect a large, visible spawn point, AMS encourage infantry to simply spawn and zerg towards the objective, relying upon the stealth field to protect the AMS.

The reality is, the lifespan of any AMS pretty much comes down to it being found and then blown up (which is generally not very difficult and is usually just done by OS).

With visible spawn points, combined arms will need to actually set up a defensive perimeter to protect the spawn point. This encourages team play, and that's never a bad thing.

Sure, Galaxies may not last long, but if that's the case, it's the result of poor defense and planning. The benefit of having a static spawn point near the enemy's base should have a cost associated with it. Without that static spawn point, transport vehicles will need to be relied upon to bring infantry to the battle, and that sounds much more dynamic than the never-ending-infantry zerg.

I guess we'll see how it works in Beta!

Good post, sir.

[Crator]

I think you might be right! Let's see how it plays out and scream loud if we do need the AMS!

[Tatwi]

With visible spawn points, combined arms will need to actually set up a defensive perimeter to protect the spawn point. This encourages team play, and that's never a bad thing.


Long range, target seeking missiles shooting at a stationary target pretty much make any defense perimeter concept moot.

Why would anyone run up to a Galaxy to shoot it? Oh, that's right, they wouldn't.

Good luck setting up a 500+m secure perimeter to defend against one or two people with rocket launchers.

[SztEltviz]

Long range, target seeking missiles shooting at a stationary target pretty much make any defense perimeter concept moot.

Why would anyone run up to a Galaxy to shoot it? Oh, that's right, they wouldn't.

Good luck setting up a 500+m secure perimeter to defend against one or two people with rocket launchers.

Why not run up? if they die they can droppod bombing the gal anyway :D

[SystematicKillr]

Long range, target seeking missiles shooting at a stationary target pretty much make any defense perimeter concept moot.

Why would anyone run up to a Galaxy to shoot it? Oh, that's right, they wouldn't.

Good luck setting up a 500+m secure perimeter to defend against one or two people with rocket launchers.

One way to help combat this, I hope is not allow rocket launchers to lock on the galaxy, they would at least have to have direct line of sight

[Figment]

Why not run up? if they die they can droppod bombing the gal anyway :D

Actually from the current rules that just requires an infil to be close to it and be squad leader. >.>

One way to help combat this, I hope is not allow rocket launchers to lock on the galaxy, they would at least have to have direct line of sight

Yes let's make arbritrary rules in a FPS game where you can't predict how your equipment will function because its use changes on a random and vehicle by vehicle basis. People love that. There would never be whining about that on forums and on top of that nobody would use dumbfire.

And since when don't you require line of sight for locking on to a stationary, landed target? ;P

[DSxGIIR]

I'm pretty sure after Beta, and the volume of tickets they get about the Gal be the "AMS"...I'm pretyt sure they'll bring the AMS back into the game and old school players will be at ease.

[Marinealver]

MAbey thell add ins something like an AMS but more of a command and control vehicle that has spawn capabilities such as a resource gathering or a choice to switch from cloak buble to mabey a sheild bubble.

[Figment]

Electrofreak is right. I got my Quovatis on in AMS certs. 90% of the time Im the only one protecting AMS. From cloakers, tanks that get too close, and Reaver fuckery.

There was no skin in game for anyone else to protect AMS. Even though an AMS is a mobile base of sorts. Making the spawn point a big beautiful visible Galaxy is the way to go. Has my full endorsement.

So when will you be able to leave your Galaxy behind and go do something fun and useful like attacking the enemy?



And how do you propose to do this with 5-10 man squads? And no, no zerg to back you up where you want and should be able to go with 5-10 man squads.

[Aurmanite]

So when will you be able to leave your Galaxy behind and go do something fun and useful like attacking the enemy?

Defending the large, armed, mobile fortress you just landed that allows your empire to spawn from isn't fun or useful?

[Littleman]

I'm with DjEclipse. Support isn't boring, but I do admit we're probably the minority here. Most people just want to shoot stuff.

However, the old AMS as it was most definitely is NOT coming back. It's pointless to carve out a model for it. Adding the spawning and cloaking customized functionalities to the sunderer - which I feel should have been a no brainer for SOE - would be a far more efficient use of development resources.

Introducing a cloaking functionality for the galaxy is borderline too much in my opinion. Shielding, sure, cloaking, no. The sunderer doesn't have access to nearly as many areas as the galaxy, nor is it likely to cover nearly as much distance in as short a time.

EDIT: Regarding stealth. Ever play Crysis? You used cloaking to move in the open without being seen (clearly.) You still had to remain out of plain sight while it recharged. I think the current iteration of stealth is based on that concept. Perma stealth was just... annoyingly simple.

[Dloan]

Having something as large and potentially vulnerable as the Galaxy as a forward spawn point will make it harder to advance. This seems to be the whole point.

PS1 had the land war ass about face, which was a large reason for the lack of fighting between bases. You didn't secure a front line and then bring up your supply to a point safely behind that, you brought up your supply and that formed your front line. This made it relatively easy for the bulk of your troops to bypass huge tracts of land, rather than fighting over it. it also rendered transport vehicles largely useless.

PS2 wants people to fight between bases, not just at bases. Removing invisible spawn points is another means to achieving this.

[Baneblade]

It will be worse if AA works on parked and deployed Galaxies the same as if it were flying.

[Doxy]

It will be fine. People are just panicking cause its new idea.

[Rivenshield]

So far, yea, they want us to try their current implementation of mobile spawning - Landed Galaxy and Squad Spawn.

Ah yes. Squad Spawn. Silly me, I still had my head in the old game and I'd completely forgotten about that. Yeah, that provides an important supplement to your big lumbering Galaxy, in the air or on the ground.

Do we know yet if it's gayass 'pop out of the air' magic teleportation squad spawning.... or do they have some hard-ish sci-fi macguffin to explain it, a la BF 2142?

(Needless to say I'd much rather see the latter. Flop some kind of marker or beacon on the ground, OUTSIDE ONLY so you can't have a group of SL's generating their own reinforcements on the run indoors like some unstoppable armored tidal wave, and handwave the HART back in. Tell 'em it's up there and it's what they're dropping from. You don't have to show it. A light assault SL can find all sorts of clever places to plant his drop beacon, and it'll give an important task for the defending light assault guys to go after, while the rexo people hunker down in the doorways).

[roguy]

Do we know yet if it's gayass 'pop out of the air' magic teleportation squad spawning.... or do they have some hard-ish sci-fi macguffin to explain it, a la BF 2142?


Yeah it's been shown plenty of times.... You drop down via HART pod and it doesn't work inside...

[Rivenshield]

Yeah it's been shown plenty of times.... You drop down via HART pod and it doesn't work inside...

Thank God. I must have missed the memo.

[Hamma]

I think it's odd not having an AMS either but I am curious to see how it plays out. There are so many more spawn points now than there were in PS1.

[Electrofreak]

Having something as large and potentially vulnerable as the Galaxy as a forward spawn point will make it harder to advance. This seems to be the whole point.

PS1 had the land war ass about face, which was a large reason for the lack of fighting between bases. You didn't secure a front line and then bring up your supply to a point safely behind that, you brought up your supply and that formed your front line. This made it relatively easy for the bulk of your troops to bypass huge tracts of land, rather than fighting over it. it also rendered transport vehicles largely useless.

PS2 wants people to fight between bases, not just at bases. Removing invisible spawn points is another means to achieving this.

^ Dloan gets it.

For those complaining about how hard a Galaxy will be to protect from AV weapons fire, the fact is that it probably WILL be hard to protect it from AV weapons fire. But if you have enough defenders, it will survive.

Think about it. If you play PS1 currently, you'll notice that it's common to see Lodestars located near any major engagement to allow vehicles to rearm and repair. These are key logistics vehicles and yet you don't see them targeted frequently. Perhaps this would change if suddenly they became spawn points, but one would think that in their current role they would be more frequent primary targets. They're difficult to kill (moreso than an AMS) and are frequently surrounded by armor, infantry, and aircraft, making them a somewhat risky target.

I think Galaxies will end up in a similar role, particularly if they're made durable enough. Anyone taking potshots at a landed Galaxy with AV will find themselves the subject of much ire by the opposing empire. If not, then perhaps that empire deserves to lose the Galaxy they're not willing to protect.

In any case, I'd like to revisit Dloan's point; PS1 is more about fighting over bases than fighting over territory. When you lose or conquer a base, and your next respawn point is in the AMS of the next base over, there's little need to fight over the tract of land in-between. PS2 seems to hope to change this, and I fully support that. My most memorable battles have been in situations where the spawn point was far from the enemy base, and infantry, armor and aircraft clashed on open terrain or the edge of a forest. Good times!

[SztEltviz]

One of the gripes outfits/platoons had about AMS in PS1 I wish we could make this our exclusive spawn. In PS2 we can.


What about deployment zones? I mean in ps1 you can't deploy two ams near.
Now if you can lock a gal to squad and the empire can't put an another down, thats serious grief tactic.



For those complaining about how hard a Galaxy will be to protect from AV weapons fire, the fact is that it probably WILL be hard to protect it from AV weapons fire. But if you have enough defenders, it will survive.

You can't protect from AV, because now everybody can change to Heavy, doesn't need to cert it first. Much more AV.

But if you manage to kill the AV guys, they will droppod bomb it, or kamikaze into it with a fighter. In Ps1 collision damage was weak, but as we see that liberator vs droppod, i think a full speed reaver will kill a gal too.

[Karrade]

From what i've seen in the videos they were discussing putting in an optional cloaking cert to the galaxy. So a lot of the discussion centered around that might be already out of date.

Still its probably too big for infils to make a stealthy approach I get that, maybe infils can cert smaller vehicles as a personal spawn point, at the cost of weapons/armor and their own carry space? (A beacon). A 1 man spawn point i might add, maybe limited use?

On AV fire, I have no idea how many shots it'll take to kill one, hopefully when its landed and up a heck of ALOT. Otherwise it'll be a big flimsy and quickly dead bullet magnet.

The other idea I was having to increase the strength of them or put on some stronger shields when its landed; Maybe the engineers can deploy some kind of directional barriers or repair drones just for the spawn points? - Rewarding teamwork.

Of course we'll only know when we play, but all this PS1 playing I've been doing recently has been reminding me how much fire they draw :).

[Figment]

Hooray, a few people that actually think critical!


Been wanting to write a couple rants over the insanely biased user scenarios some people have been drafting here, but deleted it twice when realising the amount of sarcasm was becoming a bit too hostile. I just can't believe people can be so clueless that they draft a perfect user scenario or at least one where it doesn't fail and then conclude it's good.

As with the other thread, it's like talking to this guy as a board of enquiry:
The Pentagon Wars 1998 - YouTube

Particularly the bit after 1:10 comes to mind when people talk about the Galaxy (aka "general" talking about the Pave-Way) ... They're full of it.





100+ spawnees? In what perfect Auraxis did you Spec. Ops where you had a private zerg at your disposal?


User scenarios should start with facilitating groups of FIVE. FIVE, if not less! Not start at 100! For spec ops, likely user groups are 10-22 and end at around 30. But if it doesn't work for the low pop scenario, it's already a bad idea.

And it utterly SUCKS ARSE for the low pop scenario.

It's perfect for turning the game in zombiezergside where everybody brainlessly stays in the herd and never leaves it, but it's utterly crap for a strategical game.

[Littleman]

Sounds like part of the misconception is that one should be able to park a Galaxy to set a new frontline. Kind of like how AMSes worked - someone would drive up to a base wall and suddenly troops start pouring out as they're killed off and it takes the enemy a while to figure out there is an AMS nearby unless they saw the AMS coming.

Mobile respawns are now expected to move up with the ever moving front line, not the other way around. Removing the stealth bubble facilitates this.

Still wouldn't mind seeing the sunderer with respawn and cloak capabilities though.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

SNIP
Finally, in terms of continental design, given that there is a great deal more thought going into the positioning of the bases and surrounding terrain, there will likely be spots that will allow for galaxies to be deployed in useful areas due to the conscious design decisions as to the layout of the entire continent.

Ok, cool. So once we identify the "default" places for a galaxy, we can defend really well by just "flailing" that area until the gal dies.

[Figment]

No Littleman. The communication problem is that you are too preoccupied with zerg combat to look past frontlines between two zergs and look at BEHIND enemy lines operations.

Yes, the Galaxy will fail with frontlines, too, for various reasons and I could list them here and I could explain why it doesn't do at all what Electrofreak hopes it will do for combat in great detail. Suffice to say it will make what he wrote worse because sustaining front lines will be more difficult and breaking through that line will bring an enemy closer to the next base than in the PS1 scenario, meaning less time to setup a new frontline (which in PS1 is already too little time for, even if people have to move from Itan to Tore or other way around - a line to establish after all requires two stationary zergs clashing into each other, rather than small groups of people moving alone towards the enemy and getting numerically overwhelmed, because they didn't wait for others and there's no CE to slow that zerg down, plus you can often simply go around the next line).


But that's not even the main issue. The Galaxy spawnpoint just fails as any sort of base of operations on every level, aside from the one where it is far behind the own lines. That also happens to be the scenario where it is completely useless because it doesn't cut logistical time short (people have to travel longer distances than their enemies from within the base), can't be used to change gear (people are at the frontline far away after all) and most of all can't be used to supply a constant stream of fresh troops to the front without a long march. While these people wouldn't also fan out to setup a proper line as they'll be trying to get from A to B in a straight line.



But behind enemy lines operations is where it gets even worse and this is pivotal: you only have very few people at your disposal here. Regardless of what missions you set, you will not have many people at your disposal to perform all the jobs needed. That's why these ops are usualy performed by the better players in the game. Those that can withstand several times their numbers by playing smart.

The Galaxy is NOT a smart, flexible, surgical tool, it's a blunt instrument. The AMS on the other hand can be used as a smart and flexible, surgical tool.



Ops are about not being noticed till it's too late and low pop survival against larger numbers, for which you definitely need a spawnpoint that's not immediately targeted and destroyed.


For some reason you completely fail to realise that you simply can't have an Airbus 400M tag along on a SAS or SEAL mission.



In fact, for some reason people keep ignoring that the problem we're actually talking about is the need for flexible, covert spawnpoints, deep in enemy terrain for covert operations. Those groups could use a 70 foot visible Galaxy with tracer fireworks, distracting them from their job and attracting more attention to their spawnpoint than a cat in a flee circus, as much as they need a tooth ache!

Why? Because they will already have a harder time taking anything in PS2, because they'll be outnumbered anyway and have the entire PS2 territory capture system working against them as well, while the resecure teams will be larger, can reach them easier, need less time to kick them out and probably will be less busy!


So no, the Galaxy won't do in just any use scenario. Not by a longshot!


A Sund would be an improvement, but isn't designed for that. Though the Galaxy of course isn't either. Define roles first, design units second. Not design units first, add roles second. That's a horrible design attitude.

[Littleman]

To make a long post short...

You just want AMSes back.

Yeah... I'm gonna pull the "wait for beta" card. You can keep justifying why the galaxy spawn points will fail so hard on every level, but the fact is, the SECOND that AMS was found, it was fubared too, and it wasn't hard to find nor spot rolling into position if you were the least bit attentive. OSes made taking them out trivial, but in most cases OSes weren't required in taking them out with ease.

Find a thicket of trees or a ridge to plant that galaxy behind, just like any intelligent person with an AMS would. In my mind, if you're doing spec ops, you shouldn't be parking your spawn point right on top of the back door anyway.

[Electrofreak]

Also understand that spawning at a Galaxy won't necessarily mean that you then run to the objective. It's likely that the most common tactic will be to deploy a Galaxy in a relatively safe location somewhat near the objective, and after a number of people spawn and climb in, the Galaxy transports them to the target where they are dropped. Then the Galaxy seeks a new location to set down and the process is repeated.

This is what was being done at E3, in case nobody noticed, and it was effective.

So much for the Galaxy being a "blunt instrument" and the AMS a "surgical tool". :lol:

[Flaropri]

Speak for yourselves, if you play spec ops you will hate the new spawnpoint design because it strips you from the element of surprise and chains you to the floor.

I'm speaking hypothetically. Given the flow of the game, it may be that we prefer less stable supply lines to encourage defenders to get out from behind walls and try to mount an offensive, it may be that we hate it because they are too hard to defend. It could be that Galaxies and small outposts become a prime target of Spec Ops (due to greater ease in finding them) while the main force defends the base or it could be ignored or overly encourage turtling around Gals. The point is we have to get into Beta to find out.

Less spawnpoint positions means a more predictable path.

Agreed, but I don't think there will necessarily be fewer spawnpoints (so much as more visible ones, potentially resulting in instability), and the new design for capturing zones allows for far more vectors of attack and Spec Ops opportunities than PS1 by all accounts thus far, less ease in solo-play Spec Ops but certainly possible for organized play.

[Dougnifico]

I think that squad-spawn and the galaxy will largely fill in the gaps from the AMS. Also, spawn times appear to be somewhat shorter. The AMS could have been removed to avoid spam respawning and to avoid flooding your spawn screen any more.

[Spiritbeast]

23:40-27:00
SOE Community Webcast: PlanetSide 2 Nanite Systems Vehicles - YouTube

[Dougnifico]

23:40-27:00
SOE Community Webcast: PlanetSide 2 Nanite Systems Vehicles - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rxVqK_lgo0&feature=plcp)

I find it entertaining that the employee the usually have seems kind of awkward. Hes sitting there with his bosses with probably a laundry list of stuff they've told him, "Don't you dare say a word about this, and you better not make any promises!" lol

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Imo, I don't see the issue of troops setting up forward equipment units, and the galaxies dropping their troops, then RTB for more, and ferrying back and forth. Makes being a Galaxy pilot a vital job. With the number of people PS2 will have, these kinds of operations will be feasible, too.

[Aurmanite]

Also understand that spawning at a Galaxy won't necessarily mean that you then run to the objective. It's likely that the most common tactic will be to spawn a Galaxy in a relatively safe location somewhat near the objective, and after a number of people spawn and climb in, the Galaxy transports them to the target where they are dropped. Then the Galaxy seeks a new location to set down and the process is repeated.

This is what was being done at E3, in case nobody noticed, and it was effective.

So much for the Galaxy being a blunt instrument and the AMS a surgical tool. :lol:

This is one of the main reasons why I think the Galaxy as a spawn vehicle will provide way more depth of use than the AMS did.

[Russ]

Also understand that spawning at a Galaxy won't necessarily mean that you then run to the objective. It's likely that the most common tactic will be to spawn a Galaxy in a relatively safe location somewhat near the objective, and after a number of people spawn and climb in, the Galaxy transports them to the target where they are dropped. Then the Galaxy seeks a new location to set down and the process is repeated.

This is what was being done at E3, in case nobody noticed, and it was effective.

So much for the Galaxy being a blunt instrument and the AMS a surgical tool. :lol:

Exactly. Its a different tactic, though i wouldnt draw on E3 coverage all that much.

The ability to spawn units is so much of a gain that i doubt the cons really outweigh that sole fact. But if the pilot drops all his units carried to act as a shock troop force then lands a safe distance away to deploy. The attention is off of him. You have Sunderers hauling units in, tanks firing, aircraft bombarding. The enemy is not going to able to run out of the base to get a shot at it. If you set it down in the open, of course. But there are so many tools out there.

To better illustrate my view (by all means nit pick it to) death here is a scenario:
3 fully loaded Galaxies(3x12), 3 Sunderers (3x10)

Your faction is bombarding a base with ground and air assets, destroying all their armor and clearing the skies. The 3 Galaxies all drop their units inside the base, thats 33 units. The Sunderers then follow up unloading 9 each effectively having 42 units assaulting inside the base.

The galaxies then fall back at a safe distance, followed by the Sunderers. The Galaxies all deploy. New units then hop into the Sunderers for transport and protection as they are then shuttled into the enemy base. This process repeats itself till the base is then captured.

This is the Stationary approach.

[Noivad]

After driving and deploying so many AMS in PS1 - getting the highest cert award for it, I would have to say that Flying fast to a location seems like it would be better then driving slow, even with out the cloak.

Most of the time - not always a galaxy was just ditched when we attacked a base, and then we hacked an ams out. That usually lasted just a little while till the enemy found it.

So it may not be as bad as some of us think. I spent hours driving AMS - getting shot up doing it - Not shooting anyone. So Flying an AMS might be a good idea. :evil:

[Electrofreak]

Dropped my AMS cert today to try out that "new" Wasp. :p

AMS was such a thankless cert. When you pulled an AMS, you were usually on your own. You tried to put it in the best place possible, and then people would bitch about how it was too far away. You would do your best to protect it, and then some dumbass with a rifle would spawn and then shoot a tank hundreds of feet away, and you'd watch it come round to kill Captain Stupid and of course nuke your AMS in the process.

...or how about that brilliant Engineer would lay mines all around it and then an enemy Infil would laugh while throwing an EMP grenade through the cloak bubble to send it all up in a giant cloud of smoke and shrapnel.

Oh, and let's not forget there was always that one guy that spawned and just stood there while you got into your AMS to move it... and stood there... and stood there... so you finally undeploy your AMS and start rolling and he starts chasing after you screaming "Stop!" while sending you hate tells.

It'll be so gratifying to just smash those idiots under a Galaxy.

[TheSaltySeagull]

I think the real issue here(and I this this is a lot of threads) is that people are trying to apply PS1 logic and experience to PS2. The only things PS1 and PS2 have in common are name and setting. Virtually every aspect of the game from the gun play to how the certs work is totally different in PS2. From what we have seen so far the game has far more in common with BF3 than it does PS1. Bottom line none of us have any idea how good or bad any of the new features will work until we actually try it in beta. The games are so different that we cant site PS1 situations and use them as examples for PS2. Everything said here is pure speculation and to be frank people talking out of their ass and trying to back it up with PS1 logic when it does not apply to PS2.

The sensible thing to do is wait and see how it works in beta and then complain when we actually know for sure that there is a problem. Higby and crew have stated that they would consider cloaking fields or other improved defensive features for galaxies based on beta feedback and so far they have proven to be receptive to player feedback. If an actual issue turns up in beta I am sure they will address it.

[Karrade]

I think the real issue here(and I this this is a lot of threads) is that people are trying to apply PS1 logic and experience to PS2. The only things PS1 and PS2 have in common are name and setting. Virtually every aspect of the game from the gun play to how the certs work is totally different in PS2. From what we have seen so far the game has far more in common with BF3 than it does PS1.

You say this then offer no reasons. For me it looks a lot like PS1. The base combat looks like BF3 sure, but 3 way base chaotic combat is supposedly not as common as people might think. There are more lines and divides in regular fights, as is natural when you have a lot of people shooting at a lot of other people, they tend not to mix well. The demo's however had these situations to highlight action.

If a base gets to the stage it was in, in the demo's, its already lost. People all over the place, 3 empires fighting zerg. How many outfits are going to think its a good idea to keep supporting such a place indefinitely? Not many when they wise up.

Dropped my AMS cert today to try out that "new" Wasp. :p
AMS was such a thankless cert.
*snip*
It'll be so gratifying to just smash those idiots under a Galaxy.

Now it'll be the galaxies job, so transfer all that you've just said to the galaxy. I loved my AMS :) as they were one of it not the most important vehicle in the game. Really made a difference. I am not much for flying though, so I won't be contributing that in PS2 unless a ground vehicle gets a spawn. - I think that is the crux of it for me, if you don't like piloting you can't help with that role, and why i'd like to see the sunderer get a spawn.

[Figment]

This is one of the main reasons why I think the Galaxy as a spawn vehicle will provide way more depth of use than the AMS did.

No, one of the main reasons it will fail.

Something that's airborne after 12 spawnees isn't to be called a spawn point.

That's a rally point and a manner of use that's completely unable to sustain an assault. It's useful for one small group WITHIN A ZERG, but after each run it'll likely be dead, while when deploying it disrupts any frontline trying to set up with its interference radius. Again, a Galaxy like that is not useful for Ops, because if you did that and dropped your troops and would fly off, the Gal would be chased and dead while the grunts on the ground would be waited for and farmed. Period.


But considering you lot don't really think things through, it's not weird that this is no exception.



Electrofreak - that will happen WORSE with a Galaxy. But I don't suppose you'll even think of why people would complain about having to walk even further. Or why they would complain you parked it in plain sight of the enemy. But hey... you don't think of the future, you just think that anything will be better because devs thought of it.

DJEclipse, please for the love of humanity think! A Galaxy pilot will have so much more to protect his Gal from than an AMS driver and far less tools to do it! And you honestly think that people magically change their attitude or have the luxury to sit and defend the Galaxy? Come on! THINK.



And yes Littleman I "just want the AMS". BECAUSE IT IS A @&^$*#@^$*#^$*#($& USEFUL ADDITION TO THE GAME AND DOES SOMETHING THE GALAXY CANNOT AND WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE, YET IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PERFORM SPECIFIC TYPES OF MISSIONS OUT OF ZERG. THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS. :rolleyes:


You are a PS2 fanboy with far too little tactical knowledge and experience to comprehend strategic gaming. You don't have the capacity to make a good, thorough strategic analysis as you can only comprehend a tiny fraction of of gameplay and don't look at different use scenarios, don't consider the bigger picture and don't even realise that different types of players require different types of units. You don't understand game flow. You don't understand game design. And you certainly as hell don't understand anything but zerg gameplay. And I'm not saying that to be insulting, but you're not really CR5 material (many who made it to CR5 aren't so that's not a surprise).

But why do fanboys always act so stupid that when they run out of arguments they always eventually claim you just want a reincarnation of another game, just because you refer to one element of it and indicate how it would be extremely worthwhile for another game?




PS1 is not that far removed from PS2 that suddenly a huge target becomes harder to kill On the contrary. PS2 logic suggests something completely different! Faster TTKs, more people being present and everyone having access to AV and AA certs from the start means there is FAR, FAR more firepower available. I'm not simply applying PS1 logic, I'm applying PS2 context and knowledge, while also being far ahead on strategising the continent gameplay and I simply find issues best portrayed by PS1 knowledge and experience because it's the closest thing to it. I understand it's something you lot apparently can't appreciate and I understand some of you are perhaps too dense to differentiate between what is simply applying PS1 logic without thinking in the new context the moment someone mentions PS1 or a PS1 unit as reference, but that doesn't make someone wrong.

The Galaxy not sufficing for a lot of tasks is a real PS2 problem. You're ignoring it out of idolization of the devs. I mean, every time you go "yeah but they intend...". I know what they intend! IMAGINE THAT SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH THE INTENTIONS OR EXECUTION BECAUSE THEY OVERLOOKED SOMETHING! D: ZOMG! No! Only the criticaster must be the one capable of overlooking something! Because he's human and devs are gods!


EGADS!



But fine wait for beta. But when the Galaxy turns out exactly as I say, I expect you all to never, EVER question me ever again and each and every single one of you to get on your knees and send me a PM on how wrong you were. Deal?


But I do love how you create these very nifty scenarios in your mind without ever considering the attitude of players (which won't magically change from one game to the next as it has nothing to do with the game itself, but everything with human nature and impatience) and while already knowing that scenarios like "pull back load up several units and attack" don't work with people in games like PS, because they're not that disciplined. You can pigheadedly create this "way things have to work", but if you were a designer of even a little bit of standard, you would know that's not how things work and that people want more control and do different things than zerg.

That scenario of regrouping and loading up units... They might do it ONCE. ONCE and then they'll zerg off on their own. Why? Because:

1. It clearly failed the first time, thus they'll argue it will fail the second time (attitude gets worse over time as each progressive attempt fails and has less troops, while the enemy adapts more and more to the strategy)
2. Too impatient to wait for others to die and feeling they're not contributing at that time.
3. They have no idea how long they'll have to wait
4. They get bored.
5. Others aren't waiting, people follow the herd. The more others aren't waiting, the likelier it will be people say "sod this" and run off on their own.
6. Once a Galaxy dies and it's only attainable in a few places (foothold and tech in PS2) people won't be arsed to get a new Galaxy unless it's nearby.

You lot clearly never just sit and observe player behaviour on both sides, don't know much about the PS2 context despite most the required knowledge being available and because the mental models you use are so far removed from reality and so utopic, not to mention so isolated from other information and knowledge because you can't connect the dots, it's incredibly painful to listen to.




AND STILL you are unwilling to EVEN DISCUSS fighting behind enemy lines and it's painfully obvious that none of you are accustomed to or even capable of doing that in PS1.

Otherwise you'd realise the logistical problems you'd face. Squad spawning is a once every 4-5 minutes solution, so that won't sustain a behind the lines attack with a 1 second TTK. Galaxy doesn't last. So that won't sustain an attack with a 1 sec TTK either. Local spawns will get targeted immediately, camped and retaken. You'll be facing mini-zergs as resecure teams and you don't have the @$*$***%(% luxury to fall back to a far away AMS and fly back in because that takes FAR, FAR too long to sustain a behind the lines assault. Not everyone dies at the same moment, so are you going to fly in people one by one or are you keeping them out of the fight? You realise how long loading up and flight time will be even for a small group? You realise that the flight time takes a back and forth trip for another round, meaning it won't allow you to consistently spawn and therefore each time you lift off, people have to spawn elsewhere?

No, you haven't thought about that, have you? But "somehow it will all work out", even if the devs have shown nothing. Absolutely nothing that supports proper sneak and ops attacks. And you lot every time suggesting ZERG TACTICS while talking about SPEC OPS is not really making you convince me of anything more than you lot being total incompetents on a strategic level.

So no, excuse me for not having the least bit of faith in any of you PS2 fanboys.


Not ONE Galaxy during the E3 footage with just a small amount of players there was able to land in the vicinity of the base and provide a solid consistent stream of troops. Not one of those empires tried to do anything about the temporary barracks. Because there was no use, because nothing is so permanent as temporary barracks in a demo. On top of that no groups were organized enough to stop infantry, let alone larger units. So yes, they gave the Galaxies the opportunity to load up and drop, but that doesn't reflect actual PS2 play very well at all, because in PS2 those aircav groups will fly around and take out the Galaxies. In the actual PS2 game you won't be able to replenish Galaxies so easily because those temp barracks and pads don't exist and it's even likely less resources will be available per player because they don't have to demo it. Quadruple the amount of defenders and double the organization and you might get an idea of what opposition you will face.

Stop pretending we don't know anything about how PS2 will play out, stop pretending that just because devs made an argument for a specific design decisions the argument is closed. We wouldn't be having an argument if we didn't disagree with the devs! And I disagree with a lot of arguments they used because of experience they apparently lack. Back when I was listening to that specific dev talk, I found around 12 arguments and expectations they had I didn't agree at all with. That footage from the MMORPG vid with TRay and Higgles also didn't aleviate any concerns about their tactical prowess and insight.

Chased by a multi-empire air armada zerg, they decide to jack and use a half-dead Harasser ("We need an Harasser!"... realy?), then get a Marauder (Mortar vs aircav, really?) and an Aurora (the hardest unit to aim with in game due to huge arc, with only AI capacity... just... no...), until they finally realise they might need something with a bit of AA capacity... That was really painful to watch... These are the people that have the final say on what tactical units we get for every situation. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't inspire confidence. So quoting devs really does nothing for me, maybe you can jerk of on it, but I really just take what they say for what it is and if I see flaws, which I expect and don't blame them for (nobody's perfect), I'll point them out. But don't come telling here what devs intend, because I follow all the information and I'm pretty damn sure they can be wrong.

Unless of course you state that 'devs are never wrong', by which you apparently meant to say that PS1 is perfect... Yet somehow it isn't to neither you or me. How quaint... Could devs have been wrong about PS1? Could devs be wrong about PS2? Hmmm... let's muze on that for a second...

Hmmm... YES, they can be wrong.

[roguy]

Stop pretending we don't know anything about how PS2 will play out


Stop pretending that you have any clue about a game you've never played. And don't pretend you know better than a 100 people who have been designing this game for ~3 years as their day job.

[Littleman]

Figment, you make it sound like the second you pull that galaxy, every member of each opposing empire knows where it is at all times.

They won't. Fly away from the battle, park it somewhere out of the way if you want to fight behind enemy lines.

We're not thinking things through? You're the one coming up with every excuse why the galaxy as a spawn point is useless, but somehow painting the AMS as this indisputably flawless tool. Would a cloaking bubble on the galaxy change everything? I ask because that's pretty much ALL the AMS brings to the table, and we're not even sure if that feature will remain exclusive to the AMS during or after beta.

This is Planetside 2. Things changed, and many seem to agree for the better. Get used to it. Instead of flying high and directly over a battle, fly low and around them. If you get spotted in your Galaxy, your experience with an AMS would be precisely no different, except you reach your destination a little later in the AMS.

[InternetZombie]

I think the biggest thing here is that people are thinking the Gal will be taken out by a few rockets and that it'll be made out of glass

Planetside 2 - Partnership & E3 Broadcast - YouTube

If you watch the Gal part closely you will see that in between hitting the cliff and getting attacked by the Reaver the Gal reps some of its life back. Also it gets hit more than a few times by the Reaver and still has a ton of life left, in fact the whole time it never goes under half.

The Gal is going to take some concentrated fire to take it down quickly and if it's not right at the front line (think of all those hillside battles where the AMS was sitting back, behind cover so it couldn't get hit) It'll be a challenege to actually go and take it down.

EDIT: Hey Figment, where was it said that TTK was 1 second?

[TheSaltySeagull]

You say this then offer no reasons...

I did actually I said every thing about PS2 is different from PS1 except setting and name. Weapon TTK are different, spawning is different, cert system is different, character building and customizing is different, vehicle spawning and operation is different, base layouts and features like gens are different, facility capture system is different, etc etc etc. Even in terms of scale the games are different with PS2 aiming to support thousands as opposed to hundreds.

The games are far enough removed that we cant just look at what worked and didn't work in PS1 and assume that it holds true in PS2. We have to actually play the game and mess around with it before we will know.

[Crator]

We're not thinking things through? You're the one coming up with every excuse why the galaxy as a spawn point is useless, but somehow painting the AMS as this indisputably flawless tool.

To understand Fig's position on this, you really have to be an avid AMS driver and understand all of the different situations that dictate how you are going to use it.

Would a cloaking bubble on the galaxy change everything? I ask because that's pretty much ALL the AMS brings to the table, and we're not even sure if that feature will remain exclusive to the AMS during or after beta.

Not really. The AMS is a ground unit and to use properly in certain situations requires knowledge of what the best route to drive and great situational awareness to keep it out of harms way using subterfuge tactics. A big flying boat won't allow for you to move it into position without being seen easily. Also, even with a cloak bubble, you won't be able to position it in the same locations that you would be able to with an AMS.

[ShadowDemon]

I wonder if they will make the Galaxy have the AMS cloak as a certification path when it is deployed as a spawn point. That would be kind of cool. Reward people for speccing down the Galaxy tree=)

[Littleman]

To understand Fig's position on this, you really have to be an avid AMS driver and understand all of the different situations that dictate how you are going to use it.



Not really. The AMS is a ground unit and to use properly in certain situations requires knowledge of what the best route to drive and great situational awareness to keep it out of harms way using subterfuge tactics. A big flying boat won't allow for you to move it into position without being seen easily. Also, even with a cloak bubble, you won't be able to position it in the same locations that you would be able to with an AMS.

I'm totally calling BS on all of this. Mostly because no one here has played PS2 and knows if forests will be as dense - or rather trees as solid - as they were in PS1. Again, if you're flying high and right into the battlefield, you weren't trying to be sneaky to begin with.

No, it's not a matter of understanding Fig's position, it's a matter of Fig being unable to imagine anything working outside of what worked in PS1. AMS' are rendered obsolete with a flying AMS available. Period. Sunderer's didn't carry the bulk of any empires soldiers into battle, Galaxies did. Know why? They were faster, safer and carried just as many troops into battle.

Furthermore, there's more territory to fight over than bases. Plant the damn thing behind a rock/hill instead of in plain sight like a complete dumb-ass and make sure to discourage the curious from getting too close. Even if they did, it will take a crap-load of munitions to bring it down. Galaxies even have certs for enhancing the deployment shielding, making them even more durable.

Don't expect to be dropping generators at tech plants to deny the enemy tanks. Don't expect to drain them of NTU's to force them neutral. Expect the most real damage a small team behind the lines could really do is to take a bunker or tower and hope to build a formidable offense from there.

If anyone is "spec-opsing" behind enemy lines, they'll be doing it to temporarily hinder resource acquisition. If they can take a base in 30 minutes with little to no opposition, they deserve to have it, but I'm not seeing where the behind-the-lines spec-ops maneuvers are going to be all too supported in favor of making sure the meat of the game - huge infantry/vehicle combat - stays where everyone expects it: the front line.

Hey, there's a concept - the game isn't being designed for secretive back alley brawls.

[Baneblade]

I got as far as AMS Gold, been meaning to finish it up. I like the Galspawn even if my outfit doesn't plan to use it.

But I still think some kind of temporary Foward Operating Base is warranted. It takes time to set up, and they have to be defended. So not really an AMS, but something much much more involved.

[Crator]

I'm totally calling BS on all of this. Mostly because no one here has played PS2 and knows if forests will be as dense - or rather trees as solid - as they were in PS1. Again, if you're flying high and right into the battlefield, you weren't trying to be sneaky to begin with.

It's not BS, jeez... We are all just speculating here, right? Of course we don't know how it will play out. But no reason not to talk about it so we get a general idea of stuff so that we know what we are talking about when the time does come to talk about it after we've played the game.

I just had this pretty cool idea. It involves NO AMS! But gives us back the capabilities that we might want which we had with an AMS.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/cut41ram/PS2_RemoteSpawnPad_Idea.jpg

So you've got the GAL far enough away as to not be seen by the enemy (Perhaps with optional cloak bubble that you can cert into). But you grab 'Remote Spawning Pads' from the GAL and then take them a distance away from the GAL closer to the battle. You could also add in 'Remote Spawning Pad Extenders' to allow you to link another R.S. Pad even further away from the GAL.

[Baneblade]

So, an AMS and Router hybrid? Or you spawn directly at the remote pad?

[Crator]

So, an AMS and Router hybrid? Or you spawn directly at the remote pad?


Either or? Or perhaps need to obtain cert to allow direct spawn to pad?

[Figment]

Thank you Crator, someone who understands.

Stop pretending that you have any clue about a game you've never played. And don't pretend you know better than a 100 people who have been designing this game for ~3 years as their day job.

So you're saying the few hundred people that designed PS1 never made mistakes? Then how can you or anyone else claim that PS1 has faults? And you want to argue that 100 people can't work in tunnelvision since only a team of around 5 people tend to make the decisions on specific topics while the remainder works on art and coding to execute whatever those people decided?


Oh my. Someone who has experience with development teams. Not.

Figment, you make it sound like the second you pull that galaxy, every member of each opposing empire knows where it is at all times.

The moment it enters a combat zone, more or less, yes, might be some lag but people will know its general position instantly and unlike with an AMS, once they go looking for it will know much sooner where it is - simply because it's bigger and visible.

I don't need to play a game to know that a bigger and visible unit is easier to spot, do I? If you say "you should first play", then you're just being retarded.

So, yes, they will know. Deriving where an AMS is, is easy enough. Even if just based on the trinkle of troops. However, to pinpoint it requires a bit more thorough search as it requires the spotting of the disappearing and appearing of troops directly or getting close enough to see the shield. This is a lot easier for the Galaxy. Correct?

If you say "incorrect", you're a hopeless case btw.

They won't. Fly away from the battle, park it somewhere out of the way if you want to fight behind enemy lines.

...

Do you know what the point of a spawnpoint is? Did you read one bit where I explained why that wasn't an option in my previous rant?

Your argument is "put it somewhere where you can't make use of it". FFS. Are you just trolling or really that dense?

We're not thinking things through? You're the one coming up with every excuse why the galaxy as a spawn point is useless, but somehow painting the AMS as this indisputably flawless tool.

*sigh* Flawless? No. More flexible tool. Something you can use in a much greater variety of contexts and situations. It's "flaw" is that it can't reach every high ground position on its own for instance, but yes, it has more survivability and less demands in terms of guard duty.

It appears you are out to prove you don't think things through, because you couldn't derive that from how many pages of discussion? Not to mention that you should have been able to derive that from actually using it. Guess you never used an AMS. EVER. Because I can't believe someone could be so inept they can't see difference in use.

Would a cloaking bubble on the galaxy change everything? I ask because that's pretty much ALL the AMS brings to the table, and we're not even sure if that feature will remain exclusive to the AMS during or after beta.

A cloaking bubble would help it a bit, sure. But you have to consider that a Galaxy cloak bubble would be approximately eight times the volume of an AMS cloak bubble if it's cloak field radius is 2 times bigger (pi*4/3R^3 vs pi*(2*4/3R)^3 results in a factor 2^3 = 8 difference).

So you tell me if it's easier to detect or not an 8 times bigger cloak field dome if the same cloaking technology and visual distortion is applied to a big or a small cloak dome?




So yes, evidence. Objective evidence that I thought that through further than you, because you can't figure out that a smaller cloak dome is more effective and easier to hide.

This is Planetside 2. Things changed, and many seem to agree for the better. Get used to it. Instead of flying high and directly over a battle, fly low and around them. If you get spotted in your Galaxy, your experience with an AMS would be precisely no different, except you reach your destination a little later in the AMS.

Are you going to argue speed is a benefit? Please dear sir, tell me how a flying, visible unit that is taller and thus sticks out easier over a hill, but flies faster, or can fly over the top of a ridge where it's completely visible the moment it pops over, is better than a ground unit that, though slower, has a literally lower profile and can use hills to mask its approach.

You really seem like a poor stealth driver though. Probably haven't had practice hiding a Sunderer, Router or AMS using terrain. Flying low will never be as good as driving, because flying a Galaxy, which is much taller than an AMS, some distance above the ground (which is if I recall correctly the concept of "flight"), means you stick out higher with regards to terrain than an AMS.

Meaning you get detected sooner. Meaning you get hunted down sooner. Speed or no speed.

I think the biggest thing here is that people are thinking the Gal will be taken out by a few rockets and that it'll be made out of glass

Planetside 2 - Partnership & E3 Broadcast - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGYcFfiD3K8&feature=plcp)

If you watch the Gal part closely you will see that in between hitting the cliff and getting attacked by the Reaver the Gal reps some of its life back. Also it gets hit more than a few times by the Reaver and still has a ton of life left, in fact the whole time it never goes under half.

Yes 2000 players on a map, let's assume one unit fires at it.

The Gal is going to take some concentrated fire to take it down quickly and if it's not right at the front line (think of all those hillside battles where the AMS was sitting back, behind cover so it couldn't get hit) It'll be a challenege to actually go and take it down.

Just that you need far bigger hills or objects to provide cover for a Galaxy and thus have less options by definition on the same map than an AMS (REGARDLESS if the map is adapted to placing Galaxies, a smaller unit will by definition have more positions it can be placed in) and will have to make due with less favourable and further away positions. This makes a Galaxy worse at cutting down the logistics time of getting a trooper to the front line.

EDIT: Hey Figment, where was it said that TTK was 1 second?

TTKs on troops? (Was talking about how fast you needed a respawn after all). They were going to be a bit faster than PS TTKs (with the PS1 JH, MCG and Lasher being just over 1 second an the MA weaponry around 1.3 seconds). So yes, TTK of approximately a second or slightly less as it was supposed to be a bit slower than CoD/BF3 TTKs.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

I'm not at all optimistic about spec ops and infil game play, as the devs think of everything in action action action firepower firepower firepower from tank driving to spawnpoint to infil game play. I think they're designing it for their own prefered game play style and are semi- or even completely oblivious to the wishes of other players. :/


Isn't that a little premature, given that you haven't yet piloted the thing?

Speculating is one thing, but drawing conclusions as to the team's overall motives seems like a post-beta discussion, imo.

[Rivenshield]

Furthermore, there's more territory to fight over than bases. Plant the damn thing behind a rock/hill instead of in plain sight like a complete dumb-ass and make sure to discourage the curious from getting too close.

The problem is that you have to run like ten bastards for a couple minutes to reach the hot spot. The Galaxy is sounding more like a mobile tower than a flying AMS. Remember having your AMS get taken out and having to run all the way from the tower...? and then dying almost instantly to an enemy that was waiting for you because he knew which direction you were coming from? Boooo-ring.

Squad beacons will help make up the deficit... but they only help the ten guys on your squad, instead of being a community resource. I strongly suspect when the rubber meets the road in beta, we'll find we need something to fill the deficit.

I wonder how much extra work it would be for the devs to include an AMS cert tree for the Sunderer....

/muses

[Figment]

Isn't that a little premature, given that you haven't yet piloted the thing?

Speculating is one thing, but drawing conclusions as to the team's overall motives seems like a post-beta discussion, imo.

Maybe you missed this:

They made infils uncloak on a regular basis. This is not about making them sneaky and suited for infiltration, this is a temporary combat advantage. Why? Because in this setup, you simply can't completely avoid direct contact.

On top of that they are giving infils sniper rifles. What do they do with a sniper rifle? Hack bases? Sabotage? No. They defined the infil as the assassin role. A pure combat role. Not to mention that they were considering giving the infiltrator a shotgun and wanted our opinion on that. Seriously, they CONSIDER a shotgun?


Meanwhile, hacking and jacking enemy vehicles has been removed because of limiting the need for texture development. That's another subversive method of non-combat removed on top of the removal of continuous cloaking and thus the elimination of base infiltration. Mind, I do hope they retained continuous cloaking in some fashion even at the cost of no weaponry if that's what we have to give up for it, but I'm somewhat skeptic and pessimistic about that at the moment.


But looking at the weaponry they want to pass along, what more evidence do you want that they think of these suits as predominantly combat roles?


Then there's the team out right saying in the video linked a little bit earlier: "Driving is like... boring, right?" (No, wrong) "Thus we want to give the driver control over a gun so he can shoot too" (and doesn't need to simply coordinate with his gunner and socialise and use teamwork but can drive of on his own).

Then there's the comment on "AMS driving and support is boring, so we put it on the Galaxy so they can drop people into combat after they spawned at the AMS".

Then there's the "we made the edge of continents out of bounds territory, because we don't want people to circumvent enemy positions by flying around them, but that they have to fight their way through". Uhm... Isn't that a tactical maneuvre that should be left up to the player to exploit, defend against and react to?

Then there's the thing where all they do is talk about how you can shoot people in massive amounts of people and how all these classes have all these awesome special combat abilities AND NEVER, EVER talk about what the smaller groups can be effective or how the infil classes can apply stealth for subterfuge missions.

Instead, we get all these ways of faster resecuring the backland than it can be captured, so everyone can quickly return to that big zergstalemate in the middle and don't have to miss out on the massiveness of the fight... A lot of patronising, arbitrary restrictions that are backed up with really shallow argumentation. Shallow argumentation based on PS1, that doesn't even remotely agree with my 8 years of user experience of PS1!


Yeah I know, I sound pessimistic, I kinda am disappointed in a lot of things about PS2. And really hope I'm wrong, really do. I'll still help promote the game and I'll play it if not just because I've got an outfit to lead into PS2 and I owe it to them. And I'm sure it'll be an awesome game for the zergling though, I just hope there's still room for the strategic and sneaky minded. At the moment I'm underwhelmed about that prospect. And I really do hope I won't be passing my command to someone else in the outfit a year from now. If we don't just all up and leave because spec ops aren't properly possible.

[roguy]

So you're saying the few hundred people that designed PS1 never made mistakes?

Probably far less than some random smartass on an unofficial forum.


Then how can you or anyone else claim that PS1 has faults?


Because i played the game, instead of making sensationalist claims of a couple of hours video of a very early BETA where most of the relating mechanics were specifically set up for a games expo. That's just how bad and shallow your arguments are right now, so allow me to translate your posts into "Wah Wah I hate change"

[Littleman]

Probably far less than some random smartass on an unofficial forum.



Because i played the game, instead of making sensationalist claims of a couple of hours video of a very early BETA where most of the relating mechanics were specifically set up for a games expo. That's just how bad and shallow your arguments are right now, so allow me to translate your posts into "Wah Wah I hate change"

This. Figment has no idea what the hell he's talking about and is just fanboying extra ****ing hard. His last post basically summed up SOE's plan for PS2: massive cluster-**** battles. Remember when I said they're not developing Planetside 2 for secretive back alley brawls? Thanks for reinforcing my point. Get used to what the lattice system of PS1 tried to accomplish.

Crator's idea rocks pretty hard, by the way, though that would have to be a pretty advanced certification.



I wonder how much extra work it would be for the devs to include an AMS cert tree for the Sunderer....

/muses

What's keeping them from doing so? Honestly?

It was practically a no brainer and yet...

[Greeniegriz]

Have heard them say in videos that the sunderer can be specced as a mobile spawnpoint. Its the new ams (when specced accordingly).

Rewatch the Higby/TB stream video.

Cheers,

GG

Sent from Auraxis using Tapatalk

[Landtank]

How can you even begin to say that a flying spawn point isn't as versatile or useful as a ground-based spawn point? Is this some kind of sick, horrible joke?

Your not supposed to put a spawn point on top of the front line, that's asinine. The galaxy will be placed a little bit behind the front lines so that troops can get to the front line more easily.

As the front lines move up, so does the galaxy, and its far easier to move than an AMS. It also has guns, and who doesn't love guns! Huzzah guns!

I share pretty much 0 of your concerns.

[Hmr85]

The only concern of his I share and that I agree with is from a Spec Ops standpoint. It is far easier to get your destination unnoticed in a AMS then it is in a flying Bus and it is definitely a hell of a lot easier to hide. Say like in the middle of a forest in between a bunch of trees.

If they allow you to spec out the Sundy as the poster above me mentioned then that will work for me. Hopefully it comes with a cloaking bubble.

[Envenom]

I doubt anyone would even see the large hulking Galaxy if cameo'd properly. Like in zebra for instance... Wait

[Sephirex]

Sadly anything that remotely enhances team play or spec ops will not be allowed in this "sequel" to PlanetSide. The AMS is just one of the things removed because of this dumbing down of PlanetSide 2 to please the BF/COD kiddies. We can only hope that the PlanetSide servers will still be live after Battlefield Auraxis releases. :/

Do you ever post anything different?

[Figment]

How can you even begin to say that a flying spawn point isn't as versatile or useful as a ground-based spawn point? Is this some kind of sick, horrible joke?

Alright... Have you ever flown a Galaxy? Ever tried landing it in a CY? Ever experienced problems landing it somewhere? Ever noticed how fast it pops out over the edge of a base wall? No? No, of coure you haven't. You're not very observant. In fact, you'll probably claim it never does, just to make an opposite statement of what I'm saying.

Ever tried driving a 8 times smaller unit through that same CY? Somehow that goes a bit easier and it doesn't ever pop out of cover! I wonder why!

Ever noticed how you need a bigger rock to hide an AMS than you need for a Galaxy? WOW! You just figured out how it's easier to take cover in a smaller unit!

You know? SIZE. ALWAYS. MATTERS.

But probably you won't want to realise that either.

Your not supposed to put a spawn point on top of the front line, that's asinine. The galaxy will be placed a little bit behind the front lines so that troops can get to the front line more easily.

Uhm... Yeah, because we put the AMS in full view of everyone!

Actually, sometimes we do pull one up straight to a wall, and we can use the wall as cover, because it doesn't stick out so far away from the wall as a Galaxy does.

You know, because a Galaxy simply is bigger?

SIZE. ALWAYS. MATTERS.

AMS (x) :

[]
[][==]
[]

Galaxy (big cross):

[] ||
[][={}=]
[] ||

Or at a rock:
AMS:
_
[][o=o]

Galaxy:

_ /=======//-/
[][={||}=/

Which of the two is easier to hit? It's just incredible that you even have to have this illustrated how a smaller object is easier to hide... It's just...

As the front lines move up, so does the galaxy, and its far easier to move than an AMS. It also has guns, and who doesn't love guns! Huzzah guns!

I share pretty much 0 of your concerns.

It has guns! YAY LOOK GUYZ, I CANZ FIREZORZ IN THREE DIREKZIONZ! Woot!

Great! Awesome! Any pointed in the right direction?

Oh wait. Three different directions, so you got one gun trained if they're not in your dead angle (created by the mass of your Galaxy), two guns if you are lucky and they are stupid and the other is uselessly pointing away from the enemy. YAY.

That's like... like placing a field turret next to an AMS man! Those last so damn long man! Awesome man! :D Like those Galaxy Gunships parked on the ground, they have SUCH AWESOME FIRING ANGLES WHILE PARKED MAN.

WOOO...

Oh wait, those guns all suck while parked because you can easily out-angle them...

The movement point has been adressed a few times before.


Do you lot ever make a point that can't be refuted by three seconds of thought? Because that's the amount of time you invest in this debate per argument. You have zero experience yourself, yet claim it's fine, while talking to someone who's obviously got a lot more experience setting up spawn points than you do.

[JesNC]

How can you even begin to say that a flying spawn point isn't as versatile or useful as a ground-based spawn point? Is this some kind of sick, horrible joke?

Your not supposed to put a spawn point on top of the front line, that's asinine. The galaxy will be placed a little bit behind the front lines so that troops can get to the front line more easily.

As the front lines move up, so does the galaxy, and its far easier to move than an AMS. It also has guns, and who doesn't love guns! Huzzah guns!

I share pretty much 0 of your concerns.


AMS used to be placed 'a little bit' behind the frontline, usually a 20-30 sec jog back to the fight. Didn't help their life expectancy.

Upon reading this thread it seems to me that people have forgotten that any spawn point has a huge 'No 1 TARGET'-label. Even with their small size, their cloak, bountiful CE and an abysmal long way from the fight, AMSes rarely lasted more than a few minutes in a large scale fight. It's not about hiding the spawn from chance encounters, it's about enemies actively seeking out and destroying it.

The AMS at least had a cloak and creative placement to its name, the Galaxy has what, more hitpoints? lol

Oh yeah, and it flies. Being reconned in transit ftw :D

[Baneblade]

The only concern of his I share and that I agree with is from a Spec Ops standpoint. It is far easier to get your destination unnoticed in a AMS then it is in a flying Bus and it is definitely a hell of a lot easier to hide. Say like in the middle of a forest in between a bunch of trees.

If they allow you to spec out the Sundy as the poster above me mentioned then that will work for me. Hopefully it comes with a cloaking bubble.

I've always thought the AMS was a crutch for true Spec Ops. The mission is pretty much a failure if you die and can't be rezzed... so why even bother with the AMS.

[Landtank]

Terrible and baseless argument.

Have you ever flown a galaxy? It's really easy, they are big.

You seem to know an awful lot for someone who hasn't played Planetside 2, ever, in their entire life.

I guarantee the devs know more than you, infinitely more than you, and that they aren't dumb. After your whole argument, I still share 0 concerns, and stand by my post 100%. You seem to have little idea as to how this game will work.

Anyways, look at it this way: In PS1 there was very little combat in between bases, it was mostly rush to the next base, and the AMS encouraged this type of gameplay. In PS2, the galaxy makes it a little harder to just rush to the next base. It encourages fighting in between bases and even outposts. How you see that as a bad thing, I will never know.

[Figment]

Look I can rewrite someone's post and not make one argument against it just to look dumb

Hiya.


Actually. Let's argue on.

Have you ever flown a galaxy? It's really easy, they are big.

...


I presume you're getting to a point that will somehow help your argument that it's not a big target at some point after I just made an argument you completely ignored in which I pointe out a Galaxy was "significantly of size".

You seem to know an awful lot for someone who hasn't played Planetside 2, ever, in their entire life.

How many videos with the Galaxy have we seen in PS2? You? Probably none. Me? About 20? So I don't know ANYTHING!? AN-Y-THING?


Suuuuuuuuuuure. I'm sure that AFTER I played with it, I STILL don't know AN-Y-THING according to you! Because you're now so much out of arguments, you went into complete denial!

"How can you know things!"


How can you argue that I don't know something and the devs have infinite wisdom if you haven't played yourself if that's so important?

Touché?

Shut up already with your "you haven't played" argument. If that's the case, every PS2 fanboy should be worried sick by now because they still don't know anything. "Hey look 9 hours of Total Biscuit streaming, maybe we know something by now... NAAAAAAH."

I guarantee the devs know more than you, infinitely more than you, and that they aren't dumb.

Prove to backup your claim please.

After your whole argument, I still share 0 concerns, and stand by my post 100%. You seem to have little idea as to how this game will work.

Why? You haven't made one argument beyond denial in this entire post. If you're so certain that I "don't know anything", PLEASE, illuminate us peasants.

Anyways, look at it this way: In PS1 there was very little combat in between bases, it was mostly rush to the next base, and the AMS encouraged this type of gameplay. In PS2, the galaxy makes it a little harder to just rush to the next base. It encourages fighting in between bases and even outposts. How you see that as a bad thing, I will never know.

No, because you don't think, don't listen and don't have any experience, you indeed will never know.


If you actually READ. READ, not ignored, some of my posts, you'd have noticed that I don't think a zerg stalemate is the only thing in the whole world and actually being able to move the map... rather important in a game that's built to get stalemated in the first place (PS2 will be a threeway stalemate on every continent that resets within two-three hours soon after one empire does make a bit of progress, mark my words).

[Sephirex]

I just want to be held.

Why, hello there.

[Figment]

Why, hello there.

Cuddle me? :(

[Littleman]

If you actually READ. READ, not ignored, some of my posts, you'd have noticed that I don't think a zerg stalemate is the only thing in the whole world and actually being able to move the map... rather important in a game that's built to get stalemated in the first place (PS2 will be a threeway stalemate on every continent that resets within two-three hours soon after one empire does make a bit of progress, mark my words).

And this is why the sheer ignorance is, in fact, mutual. We've gotten to the point where we're basically pointing fingers at each other going, "No, you're stupid!" (I expect another ego-born refutal.)

Lines will keep on moving. Hexes have been set up so that offensive momentum will keep pushing and pushing. The short capture times for having adjacent hexes ensure this. There is ALWAYS somewhere to punch through. A stalwart defense might hold, but it won't go anywhere, and the bolder side need only maintain a hack for a precious few seconds to a few minutes before it goes through.

And that's good game design. Dynamic battles are a must.

Coincidentally, half-hour capture times for areas not adjacent to friendly territories pretty much render the classic idea of "spec-ops" as wasted personnel.

But hey, if one were planning for spec-ops on the front lines, should they really be spawning ON the battlefield, or out of the way and making a proper, stealthy approach with the plan NOT to die during the op?

[Electrofreak]

This thread is basically an argument between those who refuse to adapt to a change designed to make battlefields more dynamic in PS2, and those who welcome it.

The reality is, Beta will come, and I strongly suspect that Galaxies being spawn points will not be gamebreaking. Instead, it'll be gamechanging, which is not the same thing.

[Landtank]

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/These+stupid+posts+make+my+jimmies+maximum+rustled +the+occupy+_da179a113ad1c5b08d1ab9ae6d58e5a8.jpg

Your a lost cause, stop being mad. You seem to know very little about both Planetsides, you shouldn't start arguments.

Lol so much out of arguments? Have you read my posts?

You know nothing, I know nothing, only the devs do. So stop whining and pointing fingers over something you don't understand. If you have a legitimate concern, and someone pokes holes in your argument, don't throw a hissy fit and refuse to be wrong.

I won't mark your words, because your "words" are completely unfounded, COMPLETELY.

Yeah, 9 hours of A BETA. Do you know what that means?! Guess what, in those 9 hours of footage, MAX suits could fly an aircraft! Does that mean I can automatically assume that that's how it will be in game? Absolutely not.

The fact that you ask for evidence for the FACT that the devs know infinitely more about this game than you do just shows how absurd you are.

Lol I have no experience, uh duh? No one does, besides those that have played the game. I hope that you can understand that, but if you can't your a "hopeless cause btw".

20 videos of a galaxy huh? Show me these 20 videos, each and every one. Let me guess, they are beta or alpha videos right? Right. :rofl:

[Crator]

I totally understand the point of view that we haven't seen what the DEVs are doing in the case of spawning and such. And perhaps they are still working on a good solution for it. If they are, I don't see any harm in posting some ideas about how it could be though. This should include pros and cons with what we know and what we know is PS1. Instead of saying "Let the DEVs figure it out!" and "Wait for beta!" we really should be talking about it at least.... Meh, whateva'....

[noxious]

Alright... Have you ever flown a Galaxy? Ever tried landing it in a CY? Ever experienced problems landing it somewhere? Ever noticed how fast it pops out over the edge of a base wall? No? No, of coure you haven't. You're not very observant. In fact, you'll probably claim it never does, just to make an opposite statement of what I'm saying.

Ever tried driving a 8 times smaller unit through that same CY? Somehow that goes a bit easier and it doesn't ever pop out of cover! I wonder why!

Ever noticed how you need a bigger rock to hide an AMS than you need for a Galaxy? WOW! You just figured out how it's easier to take cover in a smaller unit!

You know? SIZE. ALWAYS. MATTERS.

But probably you won't want to realise that either.



Uhm... Yeah, because we put the AMS in full view of everyone!

Actually, sometimes we do pull one up straight to a wall, and we can use the wall as cover, because it doesn't stick out so far away from the wall as a Galaxy does.

You know, because a Galaxy simply is bigger?

SIZE. ALWAYS. MATTERS.

AMS (x) :

[]
[][==]
[]

Galaxy (big cross):

[] ||
[][={}=]
[] ||

Or at a rock:
AMS:
_
[][o=o]

Galaxy:

_ /=======//-/
[][={||}=/

Which of the two is easier to hit? It's just incredible that you even have to have this illustrated how a smaller object is easier to hide... It's just...



It has guns! YAY LOOK GUYZ, I CANZ FIREZORZ IN THREE DIREKZIONZ! Woot!

Great! Awesome! Any pointed in the right direction?

Oh wait. Three different directions, so you got one gun trained if they're not in your dead angle (created by the mass of your Galaxy), two guns if you are lucky and they are stupid and the other is uselessly pointing away from the enemy. YAY.

That's like... like placing a field turret next to an AMS man! Those last so damn long man! Awesome man! :D Like those Galaxy Gunships parked on the ground, they have SUCH AWESOME FIRING ANGLES WHILE PARKED MAN.

WOOO...

Oh wait, those guns all suck while parked because you can easily out-angle them...

The movement point has been adressed a few times before.


Do you lot ever make a point that can't be refuted by three seconds of thought? Because that's the amount of time you invest in this debate per argument. You have zero experience yourself, yet claim it's fine, while talking to someone who's obviously got a lot more experience setting up spawn points than you do.
The AMS was a tool and we used it as it existed (because we had no choice). The Galaxy too, will be a tool, and we will use it as it exists (because we will have no choice). The galaxy is different than the AMS. The AMS had a unique set of strengths and weaknesses and the Galaxy too, will have its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

It's possible, of course, that the Galaxy, when used as a mobile spawn point, will be wholly inferior to the AMS, but in the context of PlanetSide 2, this may not be a bad thing; if the game is designed such that the AMS would provide too much offensive power, then we can conclude that its absence is a boon.

Even if we assume that the Galaxy is too weak, it doesn't necessarily mean that we need to add the AMS to fill the mobile-spawn point role. Instead, why not simply adjust the characteristics of the Galaxy when it fulfills this role?

You make a lot of assumptions about how things are going to work while seemingly ignoring how the weaknesses you point out (which are only weaknesses in accordance with your preconceptions of how the game will play) might be fixed (without adding an AMS to the game). For example, you assert that the guns on the Galaxy are mostly useless as defensive tools but it is easy to conceive of ways in which they could be designed to be formidable. For example, perhaps when deployed the guns on the Galaxy could protrude out and up, giving them greater firing angles. Or perhaps each gun could be granted a bonus to rate of fire or damage per shot. You also assert that because field turrets in PlanetSide were not effective at defending an AMS, the turrets on a Galaxy will likewise be ineffective. This does not logically follow, particular because your premise is that the field turrets were easy to kill (the guns on the Galaxy will be attached to the Galaxy's HP pool, so they will not be as easily dispatched).

[maradine]

I liked the start of this thread. The last few pages have been garbage. Can we tone down the snarling?

More ASCII art, though. That was good.

edit: not being sarcastic. Illustration is useful.

[Hmr85]

I've always thought the AMS was a crutch for true Spec Ops. The mission is pretty much a failure if you die and can't be rezzed... so why even bother with the AMS.

No, it was far from a crutch. A deployed AMS with a router in PS1 allowed for a quick rez and hop right back into the fight. Besides a good spec op crew places a AMS in a location that allows hits on multiple targets and no I don't care to elaborate on that. With PS2's Hex system it will be a ton more useful this go around.

[Karrade]

I did actually I said every thing about PS2 is different from PS1 except setting and name. Weapon TTK are different, spawning is different, cert system is different, character building and customizing is different, vehicle spawning and operation is different, base layouts and features like gens are different, facility capture system is different, etc etc etc. Even in terms of scale the games are different with PS2 aiming to support thousands as opposed to hundreds.

The games are far enough removed that we cant just look at what worked and didn't work in PS1 and assume that it holds true in PS2. We have to actually play the game and mess around with it before we will know.

I agree that we will need to play them to know, till then here is where we are, speaking about a perception or illusion :). I am responding to you, in your stating PS1 and PS2 seem dissimilar, I disagree on your perception of this illusion.

Battlesize - On the individual hexes it has been hinted that the battles will be split, with flanking actions across different points of clusters of the same size. Thousands clustered together has been stated that it might stress the server. PS1 supported thousands at its peak. - Regardless of that, I don't see how a bigger battle helps make AMS's less useful? If anything they'd be more useful?

Cert is similar - people still specialising in familiar roles, even if those roles are altering. They pick what they want to play and how they want to play, and specialise - How does this relate to AMS's?

Vehicle Operation seems similar. - You'll need to back that up.

Facility Capture System still revolves around control points, and holding them = Similar playstyles. Replacing the gen/flag with multiple flags, and more teamwork needed (or rather a large team needed to hold them.)

Character Building still seems to be specialise in what you want to play. - I am not sure how this relates to AMS's however?

Nothing much here to our argument, just speaking about our perceptions of what we've seen second hand. Which is why raising a debate about PS1 and PS2, isn't helpful to the discussion of what we'd like to see, or AMS's in general.

[Rodel]

I liked the AMS. At least its better than squad spawn!!! Here's my post on another thread that is relevant.

"Squad spawn's main purpose - to help squad members stay together.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this philosophy that if your killed the game will provide for you to rejoin your squad. If I kill somebody it should remove them from the field of play or else suicide tactics will undermine the game play. This way the factions not only develop logistical considerations but defensively it becomes a goal to cut supply lines. Kinda like real war... Squad spawn dumbs down a game.

Keep it intelligent, keep it warlike, outfits need the strategy to give them purpose."

I guess the galaxy can serve as an AMS but it sounds like that might be overpowering the Gal but that's speculation. I'll miss running around as a sniper reconnoitering the enemies movements and then placing a round into the cloaking bubble of an AMS and lighting it up for a Reaver to see. I'm just worried that the devs will sacrifice multiple relevant vehicles for simply attachments. I don't want the Gal to turn into a God Vehicle. Please don't let the Gal turn into a gunship/AMS/Cloaking AMS/Transport/Flying AA Fortress/Tour bus/Starbucks!!!


No, it's not a matter of understanding Fig's position, it's a matter of Fig being unable to imagine anything working outside of what worked in PS1. AMS' are rendered obsolete with a flying AMS available. Period. Sunderer's didn't carry the bulk of any empires soldiers into battle, Galaxies did. Know why? They were faster, safer and carried just as many troops into battle.

As for the Sunderer think on this: Hey did you guys notice how base designs allow you to drive straight into some places. PS2 seems to have opened up a new tactical approach to assaulting some bases. Think about it. Fill up a Sunderer and drive straight into the base all the while Max units and heavy assault pop out in a spread rushing the hallways. Don't forget about the two gunners providing INDOOR ARTILLERY SUPPORT!!! Sounds like one hell of a fun spec ops mission. This is also why in PS2 you'll have an incentive to use a sunderer as well as the Galaxy unlike PS1.


Hey, there's a concept - the game isn't being designed for secretive back alley brawls.

Actually this game is in fact designed to be everything It's complete and total WAR!!!
...everything goes, down planetside :cool:

[KTNApollo]

I started out feeling the same way but the more I've thought about it, the more I realized that AMS (and this comes from someone certed in AMS) are part of a problem in PS1. Instead of using combined arms to protect a large, visible spawn point, AMS encourage infantry to simply spawn and zerg towards the objective, relying upon the stealth field to protect the AMS.

The reality is, the lifespan of any AMS pretty much comes down to it being found and then blown up (which is generally not very difficult and is usually just done by OS).

With visible spawn points, combined arms will need to actually set up a defensive perimeter to protect the spawn point. This encourages team play, and that's never a bad thing.

Sure, Galaxies may not last long, but if that's the case, it's the result of poor defense and planning. The benefit of having a static spawn point near the enemy's base should have a cost associated with it. Without that static spawn point, transport vehicles will need to be relied upon to bring infantry to the battle, and that sounds much more dynamic than the never-ending-infantry zerg.

I guess we'll see how it works in Beta!


This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. AMS encourages infantry zerg, Galaxy spawns encourage defending your forward base well.

[Reefpirate]

I'm not sure if someone brought this up already or not... But I like the idea of having to fly the Gals in for spawn points. The OP's point is that they will be easily spotted... But to me that just puts more pressure on Gal pilots to be good enough to fly low and avoid being spotted which is a good thing. It makes Gal pilots need more skill.

[Buggsy]

Galaxy spawning and squad spawning is pretty much going to make the game crappy.

[Sephirex]

Galaxy spawning and squad spawning is pretty much going to make the game crappy.

Most well thought out and articulate argument I've seen yet.
We've all been moved....deeply...by your words today.

[Buggsy]

This is going to be what a typical PS2 battle is going to look like with the Flying AMS + squad spawning.

Attackers are going to setup like 8 galaxies around an enemy base, defenders are going to have 5 galaxies setup further away around their base. Setup will pretty much look like a random splotting of spawn points here and there.

Every single galaxy that is even close to the enemy base is going to be camped by air/snipers/tanks because galaxies will have a bajillion hitpoints and you get more experience points by killing infantry than killing galaxies. 4 of the 5 defender galaxies are going to be camped by the attackers.

Then people will spend half their time squad-hopping to try to find the best squad-spawns.

The battle will consist of random firefights here and there with no logical front line to speak of.

Sounds soooo exciting, I can't wait, weeeeee.

Most well thought out and articulate argument I've seen yet.
We've all been moved....deeply...by your words today.

Well when you're right you're right.

[Rodel]

I do see Reefpirate's and Electrofreaks point and it is valid. I say give the gal the option of spawning MAXs and not the AMS. Squad spawn is worse for Zerg than an AMS and besides I would like to see a multifaceted game. I trust the devs though. I think they will make the right tweeks to keep the game amazing with the Beta.

I have faith in Higby! :cheers:

[Exmortius]

i'm reserving judgement of no ams til we see it. there is no reason why they can't add ams abilities even to a sunderer later on down the road so......it's a new twist we'll see how it plays out.

[Buggsy]

I do see Reefpirate's and Electrofreaks point and it is valid. I say give the gal the option of spawning MAXs and not the AMS. Squad spawn is worse for Zerg than an AMS and besides I would like to see a multifaceted game. I trust the devs though. I think they will make the right tweeks to keep the game amazing with the Beta.

I have faith in Higby! :cheers:

You can't polish (tweak) a turd. There should be no galaxy spawning, there should be no squad spawning.

[Sephirex]

Every single galaxy that is even close to the enemy base is going to be camped by air/snipers/tanks because galaxies will have a bajillion hitpoints and you get more experience points by killing infantry than killing galaxies. 4 of the 5 defender galaxies are going to be camped by the attackers.


I only see that happening if Galaxy's were absolutely impossible to kill and if no one cared about actually defending or attacking the bases. If the game's already that broken, removing Galaxy's won't save it.

[SUBARU]

I have been back and forth on this.But I finally see how this could work.I also certed AMS in PS1.The main goal was tp get the AMS as near a base as possilbe but also hide it well.

In PS2 You dont try and hide the GAL. you place it where you can use the guns on the GAL.To rain holy hell on the base.So you can be part of the attack and you can defend the GAl when you have too.
Plan on playing Engineer and Gal pilot.most of the time

[Buggsy]

I have been back and forth on this.But I finally see how this could work.I also certed AMS in PS1.The main goal was tp get the AMS as near a base as possilbe but also hide it well.

In PS2 You dont try and hide the GAL. you place it where you can use the guns on the GAL.To rain holy hell on the base.So you can be part of the attack and you can defend the GAl when you have too.
Plan on playing Engineer and Gal pilot.most of the time

Enjoy having your GAL camped and reaver spammed 24/7. The only way this can be balanced is if the GAL is turned into a giant floating battleship with a bajillion hitpoints. And then everyone will cert the GAL, then we can all have GAL warz, fly around and GAL each other to death.

The GAL as the spawn point
WON'T
WORK

I only see that happening if Galaxy's were absolutely impossible to kill and if no one cared about actually defending or attacking the bases. If the game's already that broken, removing Galaxy's won't save it.

Nobody will care about actually defending or attacking the bases, you get experience points by killing dudes, nobody cares if you win or lose the map.

Game's broken because of the Galaxy, and removing the flying AMS Galaxy will save it.

[Sephirex]

Nobody will care about actually defending or attacking the bases, you get experience points by killing dudes, nobody cares if you win or lose the map.

I don't know if I can take any of your posts seriously if that's how you view this game.

[Buggsy]

I don't know if I can take any of your posts seriously if that's how you view this game.

You've obviously never played videogames before.

[Sephirex]

You've obviously never played videogames before.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol:

[Braveliltoaster]

Galaxies just don't have the stealth capabilities of an AMS... they're huge, and have to fly.

Having smaller trucks that could be put into position without the enemy spotting them to setup forward spawn points between facilities for infantry was a very important part of PlanetSide. Without them, I see a lot of having to either wait for a medic (may not be possible a lot of the time outdoors) or run all the way back from a static spawn point(grabbing an ATV where possible) when your squad spawn is on cooldown... because Galaxies will not last long as spawn points because it will be so easy to spot where they get deployed, and it would be far too difficult to fit them in sneakier spots, especially tree-dense areas.

they are thinking of putting cloaking upgrades for the galaxy just FYI

[Rodel]

You've obviously never played videogames before.

HAHAHA You didn't play planetside did you? :lol:

Please don't say that you did because if you think thats true I will :crapper: my pants off....

[Buggsy]

they are thinking of putting cloaking upgrades for the galaxy just FYI

wait wait, let me guess, too much camping.

[Rodel]

Starbucks Galaxy FTW!!!!

[Dullard]

Nobody will care about actually defending or attacking the bases, you get experience points by killing dudes, nobody cares if you win or lose the map.
There are certainly players who only care about xp and their k/d ratio, but I'd say that a large part of the Planetside1 community actually cares about winning or loosing a base. This will carry over to Planetside2 as well.

[Buggsy]

There are certainly players who only care about xp and their k/d ratio, but I'd say that a large part of the Planetside1 community actually cares about winning or loosing a base. This will carry over to Planetside2 as well.

No, they only cared about hacking a base so they can grind out their Command Rank to get their I-Win-Button Orbital Strike. It's why squad leaders were always exasperated and why everyone else was like, "Whatevah talk to the hand."

[Kayos]

No, they only cared about hacking a base so they can grind out their Command Rank to get their I-Win-Button Orbital Strike. It's why squad leaders were always exasperated and why everyone else was like, "Whatevah talk to the hand."

Do you troll every thread you read?

[Sephirex]

Do you troll every thread you read?

Best not to make eye contact.

[Buggsy]

Do you troll every thread you read?

ignore list #11 or so

[Dullard]

No, they only cared about hacking a base so they can grind out their Command Rank to get their I-Win-Button Orbital Strike. It's why squad leaders were always exasperated and why everyone else was like, "Whatevah talk to the hand."
Did you love your OS once you got it?

[Sephirex]

ignore list #11 or so

Gotta admit, you're pretty good.

[Crator]

Nobody will care about actually defending or attacking the bases, you get experience points by killing dudes, nobody cares if you win or lose the map.

Speculation alert! http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/cut41ram/animated-gifs-flashing-blue-lights-004.gif

Can't say that until you know what rewards you get for base caps, now can you? This thread isn't about that anyways....

[Buggsy]

Speculation alert! http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/cut41ram/animated-gifs-flashing-blue-lights-004.gif

Can't say that until you know what rewards you get for base caps, now can you? This thread isn't about that anyways....

Rewards like I-win button CUD abilities that destroyed PS1? That bribes the player into having interest in the map. Bad game design.

Did you love your OS once you got it?

Why would I get something I loath?

[Landtank]

No, they only cared about hacking a base so they can grind out their Command Rank to get their I-Win-Button Orbital Strike. It's why squad leaders were always exasperated and why everyone else was like, "Whatevah talk to the hand."

I only cared about making the NC the greatest empire ever CONCEIVED, but I too hated Orbital Strikes, though this isn't the thread for that.

[noodz]

I just noticed this thread for the first time... and....


NO AMS IN PS2?

WHAT THE F***?

One of the distinctive vehicles and ways of spawning in PS1, has been removed?

WTF , AMS WAS NEVER BROKEN?



SIGH

edit:shoulda read thread first lol. Gal sounds ok but we wont know until we test things.

[Landtank]

I just noticed this thread for the first time... and....


NO AMS IN PS2?

WHAT THE F***?

One of the distinctive vehicles and ways of spawning in PS1, has been removed?

WTF , AMS WAS NEVER BROKEN?

WHY DEVS? SO BF KIDS CAN SPAWN ON THEIR SQUAD LEADER?

EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT AN AMS IS AND HOW THEY WORK, WHY TAKE THEM OUT?

You devs really need some oldschool gamers and guys that played PS1 from beta, people that know their stuff.

I bet half the dev team started playing PC games when COD MW2 came out LOL


SIGH

Galaxy=New AMS, herp derp doe!

[noodz]

Oh ok then, still... I sigh when I see things that make the original what it is, taken out for stupid or no reasons.

I can actually picture the galaxy method working out. I guess it wont be claoked.... spawning while airborn will probably be an option? hmmm

[GLaDOS]

I just noticed this thread for the first time... and....


NO AMS IN PS2?

WHAT THE F***?

One of the distinctive vehicles and ways of spawning in PS1, has been removed?

WTF , AMS WAS NEVER BROKEN?

WHY DEVS? SO BF KIDS CAN SPAWN ON THEIR SQUAD LEADER?

EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT AN AMS IS AND HOW THEY WORK, WHY TAKE THEM OUT?

You devs really need some oldschool gamers and guys that played PS1 from beta, people that know their stuff.

I bet half the dev team started playing PC games when COD MW2 came out LOL


SIGH

Dude, you're making yourself sound like an idiot. I never played the first Planetside, but it seems like an invisible spawning point doesn't really require any tactics to use, as it needs no defense or anything. We're not really sure how the Galaxy will deploy when it is landed, and what defenses it will have, so we'll just have to wait until beta. Also, if there is some horrendous problem with the Galaxy's spawning, then it will definitely be noticed and fixed in beta. Let's just be patient and open to new ideas.

EDIT: Just saw your new post, you no longer sound like an idiot. I personally hope in flight spawning will not be an option, or will be very limited, because it seems a little unfair.

[Landtank]

Oh ok then, still... I sigh when I see things that make the original what it is, taken out for stupid or no reasons.

I can actually picture the galaxy method working out. I guess it wont be claoked.... spawning while airborn will probably be an option? hmmm

Nah it deploys, it can have a shield, and will potentially be certed to allow for cloaking!

[noodz]

Well whatever ground defenses and such that the Galaxy will have in PS2, could be easily added to the ground defenses of a PS2 AMS.... zero difference. You are speaking like they would just add in an AMS and copy it 1:1 from PS1, doubt it.

We already have a galaxies and they're for moving troops and drops etc, not spawning.

I still play PS1 everyday, & I guess I just have so many memories out of spawning from AMS it just seems wrong to change it for the sake of changing it.

[LtHolmes]

They are not changing it just to change it. They did not want the ams/cloaked spawn point in PS2. They felt that there was not much to driving it and parking it as far as the driver experience goes. Also, the designers do not care for the cloak.

The galaxy now has a use after a hot drop. Rather than just bailing and letting it crash, the pilot can make land in a strategic location. I imagine he would have an idea before the hot drop of where he was going to land. The deployed galaxy will add another objective to fight to destroy or defend and be more active than playing "hide and seek" . The pilot can then decide to set up a defense for the deployed galaxy. He can do this with the gunner positions, turrets, combined arms, etc. It will take team work and not be a set and forget necessarily. This is intended. They also mentioned for increased shields and that it will more than likely be able to take and orbital strike without dying. (if there is an orbital strike in PS2)

They did not want to turn the sunderer into a mobile spawn, which was the other choice opposite the galaxy. Mostly because they wanted you to take troops and push through the enemy lines to get your infantry right in the fight. They thought it would take away from that if it was a spawn point.. what would be the point of carrying troops into the fight if it could just spawn them when it got there.

Anyways, it adds another layer to the fight and something more for a galaxy pilot to think about. These were all discussed in the webcast for the the vehicles some time earlier this year. Just thought I would mention that they put a lot of thought into the whole subject and made a conscious decision to exclude it to promote more interesting game play.

Cheers.

[shadar]

If i can make a point without being flamed as someone new to this argument and to planetside in general it seems to me atleast that the main reson for the dev's taking out the AMS may have been due to outside of its cloak (from what i can tell) it had very little health or devenses. I dont know how much anyone has thought about this but with PS2 being a f2p game there will be random dicks who creat 2 extra acounts to spy on the other empires and then tell there friends (probly by using some app to mark its locotion on the map as the devs siad they will have app making tools avalbe) hey theres a cloaked spawn here want to blow it up. I dont know if this is the devs reson behind changing it but it seems like a valid one if not one you want to overaly publizes. It seems like it should work fine for the main zerg MAYBE chaning the tatic up a bit from what seems to be place spawn everyone uses spawn to get to next location to poeple having to get to the location to place spawn. Not going to comment on wether thats better or worse needs beta for that. However the figs guy does have a point that it does screw over the "spec ops". in the devs deffence about that however they probly reson that the galaxy would be the main way the spec ops poeple got to the bace in question and that it would make it easyer on them to have galaxy as a spawn. However that doesnt seem practical any more than the use of squad spawn which tells everyone where you are. Them bringing the AMS back though isnt going to happen so for those who want the spec ops play try suggesting an alterntive it doesnt even have to be a vehicle just have a spec in the outfit spec tree (or hell have it require both squad command spec and outfit spec) that lets you deploy a small cloakable spawnpoint so you dont have to drop in and give away your position. To ballance it make it so only outfit memebers can use it mostly elemitating the treat of poeple using "spy" accounts to find out where it is and also preventing poeple who want to help but would just end up giving away the spawn location from doing that while still keeping the galaxies roll as main spawn. Those are just some ideas off the top of my head im sure yall long term spec ops poeple can think of better ones and if im factual wrong somewhere in this clusterfuck of a post then please point it out im new here and not trying to troll. Though for the spec ops poeple you mind want to try to be a bit calmer when arguing for your side because it makes it easy for poeple to dismiss you as merly unadapting to change.

EDIT: apoligies for the block fromat and terrible spell its 2:03 in the morning cut me some slack

[Mr DeCastellac]

I think it's neat to have a flying mobile spawn point, but I would MUCH prefer the AMS. The Galaxy is so big in PS2 it wouldn't be practical at all as a spawn point, plus it would be spotted much easier than a ground vehicle.

I loved the AMS, it was one of the most creative vehicles in the game. Sad that they're removing it, but it's a bit too late to change it. I really hope they bring it back in post-release content.

I haven't heard anything about there being an invisibility shield on the gal, at least since they said there wouldn't be one. That just makes it even worse. A giant flying target that has no choice but to sit out in the open with no stealth capabilities. Won't be certing that if I'm low on points.

[Ravenclaw]

I think visible deployable galaxy would be great but only on 2 conditions.

First: It needs a very powerful fast regenerating shield while its deployed (not when airborne) this makes it a tough target to take out.

Secondly: It needs a top mounted gunner postion with 360 degree rotation, which can be customised but more likely specced for AA, this turrent only active once deployed.


this will turn galaxy into a mobile fortress, almost like a tower, it will still need defending from a assult, but random aircraft scouts will be very vunrable to its top gunner postion.