Cloaking deployed galaxies [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Cloaking deployed galaxies

Kriegson

2012-07-30, 09:58 AM

ChipMHazard

2012-07-30, 10:00 AM

They have mentioned a lot of possible certification ideas, time will tell which will make it into the game:p

Gugabalog

2012-07-30, 10:09 AM

I hope they add a cloaking thing. I mean, they have them for infil suits, maybe it could somehow be a scale up of that?

Hamma

2012-07-30, 10:44 AM

For it to be useful as an AMS replacement it will need some nifty toys. It's a huge target that will be destroyed quickly. You cannot sneak a Galaxy anywhere. ;P

Littleman

2012-07-30, 11:11 AM

Reizod

2012-07-30, 11:17 AM

It will probably be one of things that is added as a cert/sidegrade. As Hamma said, in order for it to be a replacement for the AMS, it's going to have to have cloak or something similar.

Tatwi

2012-07-30, 12:10 PM

For it to be useful as an AMS replacement it will need some nifty toys. It's a huge target that will be destroyed quickly. You cannot sneak a Galaxy anywhere. ;P

http://www.planetside-universe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=833&stc=1&d=1343666044

Maybe you can't.

Rodel

2012-07-30, 12:30 PM

I think that one motivation for the AMS Gal was that it replaced the AMS and it meant there was one less thing they had to do to get the game playable for E3/Beta/Launch but I bet they have a list of secondary priorities that will develop once they balance out Beta play. Cloaking gal I think will be allowed only if the Metagame demands it but I still see a traditional AMS coming into the game.

Rivenshield

2012-07-30, 01:07 PM

Doesn't matter if the Gal can cloak or not; it's still this big obnoxious thing you can see a mile off. Everybody will see it come in and land, and everybody will know where it is, and you can't operate it inside a base's SOI -- dynamic or not.

There is still a niche for something small and concealable that you can smuggle inside the enemy's base and provide a steady flow of reinforcements. Bring back the AMS! Just make it faster and/or Gal transportable so there's less drudge time involved in driving, is all.

Gugabalog

2012-07-30, 01:22 PM

^ AMS is too arcadey. I don't mind it's style too much but I'd prefer to have logistics of respawn be a little more complicated than "DRIVE TO POINT DEPLOY"

Timithos

2012-07-30, 01:23 PM

I could swear that I read at some point that engineers (most likely) can deploy an object that cloaks an area, whether from visual or just radar detection I'm not entirely sure, but regardless, can anyone confirm or deny this?

Even if that isn't the case, we now have much larger and effective deployable turrets, along with having guns on our mobile spawn. Why are people still moaning about it?

Well it exists in Planetside 1. Engineers can deploy a shield generator. Maybe that's what you read? I don't recall seeing any shield generators in game footage. The only thing I remember seeing are satchel charges, ammo drops, and turrets. I'm hoping they bring almost everything back an engineer can do in PS1.

Raymac

2012-07-30, 01:29 PM

While I think the Galaxy benefits much more by having guns to defend itself, I certainly think there is a need for a cloaking ability for the more covert spec ops outfits.
The ability to cloak once it is deployed should be enough. I mean the AMS was the biggest an I think the slowest ground vehicle in PS1, so it wasn't easy to sneak it anywhere either, but it was still effective.

feuerdog

2012-07-30, 01:39 PM

For it to be useful as an AMS replacement it will need some nifty toys. It's a huge target that will be destroyed quickly. You cannot sneak a Galaxy anywhere. ;P

Maybe.

In PS1 terrain hiding a cloakable galaxy would be difficult.

The new verticality of terrain, massive bases, night/day lighting, partial camo, and fog/dust effects of PS2 may be enough to make finding even an uncloaked Galaxy a bit tricky at times.

In the beta footage we've seen so far there has been an abundance of air activity, but we still have yet to test and see how the resource and respawn timing may inhibit or restrict air activity. If anti-air features become easy to acquire, then air power may play alot differently in PS2.

Regardless of all that, merely being able to respawn into an in flight Galaxy will be a HUGE asset to an organized outfit.

Gugabalog

2012-07-30, 01:53 PM

Blackwolf

2012-07-30, 01:59 PM

This topic definitely falls under "wait for beta." It's one thing to speculate about how the galaxy spawn will handle with or without cloaking, it's another to actually experience it in practice.

Speculation is like talking about what's on the other side or inside of a black hole - we can only imagine.

I agree here. The player numbers alone may ensure that assaulting an Galaxy position won't be a solo job even for a tank, where as if a tank rolled up on an AMS in PS1, it was typically dead.

I don't even think the AMS is needed, and probably won't be in the game ever. They've combined a lot of vehicle roles in order to reduce the number of vehicles needed at launch.

In fact I would guess that Galaxies will be a lot safer acting as AMSes then as Galaxies. PS1 Galaxies flew over a base and provided a hot drop, then had to fly back out of the combat zone in order to pick up more troops, or they got shot down, being such huge targets. In this model they can fly in low and drop off their troops in the forest near the base without having to go into the base, and rather then risk being spotted by enemy AA, they can stay there and continue to serve the function of bringing troops to the battlefield.

feuerdog

2012-07-30, 02:01 PM

Yea it would be a big asset. Reminds me of the transports from BF 2142. Thos could be the difference between a win and a loss.

Speaking of aircraft, how capable do you think the liberator tailgunner will be?

It depends more on the gunner than the gun itself i'd hope.
Beta balancing the Liberators main gun is what i'm worried about at the moment.

Littleman

2012-07-30, 02:02 PM

A sunderer with spawning and cloaking abilities might make more sense than a galaxy with cloaking. I mean, one of the perks of the galaxy as a spawn point is precisely because it can fly: exactly where can't it deploy, and quickly?

Additionally, designing the AMS for a single role when the sunderer can act out that very same role with a little coding seems like a waste of (real world) resources, honestly.

feuerdog

2012-07-30, 02:14 PM

If it were up to me there would be no vehicular or player based spawns,....there would only be pod dropping, and building based spawn points.

If we had to have a vehicle based spawn it would be a ground vehicle about the size of a Loadstar, much slower than an AMS, but with more defenses.
The only sheild/cloak generators available would be engineer created, and they would be combinable to create larger sheilds for bigger vehicles,....such as Galaxies.

Justaman

2012-07-30, 02:15 PM

For it to be useful as an AMS replacement it will need some nifty toys. It's a huge target that will be destroyed quickly. You cannot sneak a Galaxy anywhere. ;P

You mean, "for it to be as OP as an AMS". :P

Cloaked AMS's where hidden all over enemy courtyards, providing instant respawn right back into battle. Made many fights into "if we keep throwing men at them, our bodies will clog their guns eventually!".

It was just to easy imo.

Gugabalog

2012-07-30, 02:16 PM

Yea, same. No mobile spawns besides squad spawning. Though the mobile spawns provide changing fronts it just feels weird to me. Blows immersion out of the water. Games get super fun when you get immersed.

But yeah, maybe a lodestar sized ground vehicle wit ha few more turrets than a sunderer.

aleksandrgrc

2012-07-30, 02:25 PM

in infantry the server with tanks had a big ass one with like 4 turrets and one huge main forward gun on a slow moving chassis. took like 5 or 6 ppl to work. when planetside came out. that is one of the things i instantly loved. needing 3 guys for a prowler or lib. but whatever. i like what we will get in 2 as well.