Make AMS more defensable

[Crator]

I have successfully wedged a S-AMS in a location that was close to an objective we were attacking but behind hill cover. We didn't have many vehicles and once the air discovered my location it didn't last long after that.

PS1 AMS was about getting infantry closest to the entrance of a base/tower. That oftentimes meant having to be sneaky using the cloak bubble. And once a good location to park the AMS was found it could survive for a while (depending on the situation of course).

I was just curious what the overall opinion is on how the current AMS mechanic is working now that the game has been released for a month.

[Graywolves]

I think a large number of locations were designed without the AMS in mind while some have very good locations. It's possible to defend a well placed AMS from air and vehicles with a dedicated team.

One of the major differences between defending one in PS1 and PS2 is that in PS1 there were forests they were often placed in and combat engineers would place mine fields and spitfire turrets all over around the area.

In PS2 you're either sandwiched between buildings, in the vehicle bay, or in the open with maybe a rock.



One of the main reasons I feel there's some foresight lacking when it comes to base layout and AMS is really just how easily it is farmed by a Liberator. With the Galaxy-AMS you needed a big open area to land and deploy, infantry were a bit more spread out from it and they could get some cover from the Galaxy itself if it was being bombarded. The Sunderer pretty much clusters everyone together to be farmed and provides some but little cover, only from tanks sitting on the otherside really.



I don't think it needs to be more defense friendly as much as it needs to be less prone to being farmed.

But there are some things that could make it more interesting. Like if a 2nd sunderer could have a cloak bubble. I could see this getting nasty though in certain situations with snipers and hiding tanks.

[Beerbeer]

Sony's response:
Combined arms, bring air and tanks to protect it.

Squad leader:
But, my entire squad wanted to play infantry and no one else was around.

Sony:
It doesn't matter, you're not doing it right. Maybe this game isn't for you.

[SeraphC]

Sony's response:
Combined arms, bring air and tanks to protect it.

Squad leader:
But, my entire squad wanted to play infantry and no one else was around.

Sony:
It doesn't matter, you're not doing it right. Maybe this game isn't for you.

It's your job to devise the strategy for making something work, not theirs. They just provide the tools. If your deployment location is prone to being attacked my tanks then you should either bring a counter for those tanks or deploy at a harder to reach/find location.

Sony was right, you're doing it wrong. "I'd rather do this or that" is something that is irrelevant when you're looking for a winning strategy. In fact, it's totally ridiculous in almost any game.
Pacman: I'd rather run into the coloured ghosts than run away from them ... NO.
Tertis: I'd rather put all my blocks in the middle on top of each other rather than form lines ... NO.
Chess: I'd rather only play with pawns, who needs the other pieces ... NO. (this one fits really well here)
You play the game in full, as it is. You can of course argue that some things can be improved to make for better game play. But I'd rather only play infantry doesn't fall under this category.

I've seen some pretty genius deployment locations, so I don't agree that there are none or even too few. At some places it's harder though, keeps things interesting.

[Beerbeer]

Lol.

[Crator]

It's your job to devise the strategy for making something work, not theirs. They just provide the tools. If your deployment location is prone to being attacked my tanks then you should either bring a counter for those tanks or deploy at a harder to reach/find location.

Sony was right, you're doing it wrong. "I'd rather do this or that" is something that is irrelevant when you're looking for a winning strategy.

I've seen some pretty genius deployment locations, so I don't agree that there are none or even too few. At some places it's harder though, keeps things interesting.

Genius, sure, there's locations like that in PS2. But real genius and more dynamic game play is obtained when giving the driver a tool as well. Like a cloak bubble for instance. Or better weapons to deal with different threats.

[bpostal]

Genius, sure, there's locations like that in PS2. But real genius and more dynamic game play is obtained when giving the driver a tool as well. Like a cloak bubble for instance. Or better weapons to deal with different threats.

Or better CE with which to protect the AMS.

[Crator]

^ That too, would be great. I was also just thinking a bit more about my experiences in PS2 and comparing to PS1 with the AMS. With the cloak bubble, if there were other AMS deployed in an area, I could easily hide a bit away from the other deployed AMS and be in good position to redeploy to the location the other AMS is at if it were to be destroyed. There were just more options with a cloak bubble that made sense.

[Timealude]

^ That too, would be great. I was also just thinking a bit more about my experiences in PS2 and comparing to PS1 with the AMS. With the cloak bubble, if there were other AMS deployed in an area, I could easily hide a bit away from the other deployed AMS and be in good position to redeploy to the location the other AMS is at if it were to be destroyed. There were just more options with a cloak bubble that made sense.

i dont think this would work, simply because they could still farm you just as easy. Hell as an infiltrator my main job is to spot enemy AMSs. Giving them a cloak bubble wouldnt make it any harder to find IMO and would just be abused by people with proxy mines.

[Crator]

i dont think this would work, simply because they could still farm you just as easy. Hell as an infiltrator my main job is to spot enemy AMSs. Giving them a cloak bubble wouldnt make it any harder to find IMO and would just be abused by people with proxy mines.

That's kind of my point. Protect the AMS from air sight and make infantry work towards finding, reporting the find, and making a logistical effort to kill it.

[Rivenshield]

1) A cert tree to unlock an AMS cloaking bubble would seem to be in order.

2) We need general-purpose mines, spits, and motion detectors to protect it even more than we did in the original, given the lack of vegetation.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

I'd really like to see the sunderer have a +500% "top armour" sidegrade. I don't mind my sundy being killed, that's part of the game, but 3 dalton rounds? That's 12 seconds. Against tanks or heavy infantry, those guys have to do a bit of work to line up their shots, so that's cool, bit liberators have too much freedom.

I don't care how many engineers you have repairing it, against a medium sized, zergy, disorganised enemy airforce, once someone "q"s your sunderer, it's gone within 15 seconds. Never mind an organised group like me and my airforce buddies rolling in 3 libs and 4 reavers as a pack.

There's not enough "top cover" like bridges or rocky outcrops to hide under. PS1 trees were awesome for that.

[Beerbeer]

A cloak shield would be the easiest solution.

Come on, ps1 had a cloak shield for a specific purpose.

Ps2 does not for another specific purpose. It wasn't by mistake or oversight it's not in.

[Sunrock]

I have successfully wedged a S-AMS in a location that was close to an objective we were attacking but behind hill cover. We didn't have many vehicles and once the air discovered my location it didn't last long after that.

PS1 AMS was about getting infantry closest to the entrance of a base/tower. That oftentimes meant having to be sneaky using the cloak bubble. And once a good location to park the AMS was found it could survive for a while (depending on the situation of course).

I was just curious what the overall opinion is on how the current AMS mechanic is working now that the game has been released for a month.

I'm ok with it. If you want to defend your AMS from air you can always deploy and pull a burster MAX. The ground to air RPGs are not that bad either.

And no it's a myth that burster MAX cant kill air. That's just the most stupid QQ threads that try to convince you about that.

[gunshooter]

There's too many of them for it to be fair if they were harder to kill. Which sucks, because trying to attack a base with a smaller force that only has 1 AMS is pretty hard when 1 smart player can end your attack instantly.

I would like to see less sunderers somehow, and then give them cloak or something. Something to make them harder to find, especially for air.

[Figment]

Let us first make it an ams, so people use Sundies more proper offensively and run through shields, rather than as cert generator.

The Sunderer is suffering from Lodestar syndrome, tbh: underuse of proper transport function due to cert generating powers in relative safety.

[SGTalon]

I would love to have a Pure AA gun for the AMS. None of the current options do enough damage to air to deter them.

The timers and cost on the MAX severely limits the use for defense of an AMS. 90% of the time when i have a MAX it is in defense of a base, not my Sunderer unfortunately.

It would be nice to have some kind of shield like the Galaxy had when it was an AMS too. Give up the Regen or Ammo options for a shield that comes out on the terminal sides when it is deployed. Still vulnerable from the front and rear but at least you can access the terminal without getting ganked.

I think just having an AA turret would be awesome though. I would buy it for sure.