Remove Sundy AMS

[Riekopo]

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

[Figment]

We more or less had that period in Tech Test. We also had a period where you could deploy without interference radii.


But your suggestion wouldn't work, not with the hack and hold system, respawn rates and base layouts that demand consistent reinforcements.


AMSes should be split from Sunderers though because they do infringe on the transport (especially gatecrasher) role too much IMO.

[Kerrec]

Add a generator inside the base somewhere. The generator powers a device that prevents an AMS from spawning people, within a specific range.

That way attackers will have to cross a no man's land to get to the walls, then destroy a generator that will allow them to move up the AMS.

[bpostal]

You'd have to up the TTK as people would get extremely frustrated with having to run/drive/fly from their nearest rally point (which, without the AMS would potentially be hundreds, if not thousands of meters) to the fight.

Zerging would be more of an issue then ever and if you think the average player is afraid to push now...it'd get even worse.

The areas between bases would spend a majority of their time uncontested.

If anything there should be a larger difference between an AMS and a gun truck/transport.

[Figment]

SOI to prevent spawn beacon droppods: yes. Mostly to give more value to Galaxy Drops and infiltrators.

Higher and closed off walls: yes. Mostly to make defense against Light Assaults getting in a bit more viable (even if with the current designs of walls and the future designs of walls I don't have much faith it will prevent or improve any such issues).

Placing gens in more defensible locations within the natural habitats and routes of defenders: yes.

Walls with wall-walks: yes.

Complete curtain walls to prevent AMSes from just driving in at random: yes.

But an SOI to prevent AMSes might simply be a bit much. It's a ground unit. Same to the SOE idea of preventing AMS placement in the current vehicle bays. That's silly. It's the one thing that allows at least some base defense right now.




I'd rather limit the sheer amount of them by having players make choices between vehicles available to them and which vehicles they'll never be able to pull instead.

We have a numerical issue with vehicles, not a proximity issue: kill one, next takes its place. Kill five, next takes its place. Same issue as with tanks and aircraft: they're simply too available in a rotation sequence per player.

And that's down to the cert sytem. Not the physical in-game AMS placement restrictions.

[Punker]

While i agree there should be more punishment for dying i don't think taking the mobile spawn point away would be the right answer. Another game i played, very similar to planetside 2 had a timed system, the more you died the longer it took you to respawn.

Also in this game, the different types of respawns had different timers e.g. Spawning at an AMS was +20s spawning at the nearest friendly owned base +10s or spawning at sancturary +0s.

This i feel would help the game so much. That and when defending / fighting against a large zerg you aren't having to kill the same guy every 5 seconds, the timers would work like traffic lights on a road - instead of a constant stream of enemies, you would get waves. Time to regroup and rethink, maneuver, and strategize for both sides.

[Babyfark McGeez]

I don't see anything wrong with sunderers. I like them the way they are.

However, i also wouldn't complain if they would remove all weapons from AMS-sundies, or if they would introduce a certain (small) no-ams-range for bases.

I still see an AMS-only vehicle as the best possible solution to prevent ams spam (which i don't see as a problem though, it was one back in beta without the range limit).

@Punker: Aye that, it doesn't make any sense at all that spawning from an ams is FASTER than from a base (It also adds another benefit to the attackers). It should be WARPGATE -> BASES -> AMS and not the other way round imo.

[Kerrec]

Figment, I didn't expect you to agree with me. That's just how I would do it.

I recall a base fight where someone had parked an AMS behind a hill instead of right up against a wall. Everyone was pinned down by the infantry on the wall and the AV turret. We got everyone up and ready, and rushed over the hill to the wall in one big wave. Being an LA, I bobbed up and down in the air, making myself harder to hit and avoiding the splash damage from the AV turret. I managed to get myself directly underneath the AV turret, regenerated my jump jets, then jetted up and put C4 on the turret. I managed to take it out, and that made a huge difference to our ability to push up to the wall.

All that, because someone decided to park an AMS behind a hill, instead of up against the wall itself. When a wall becomes shelter for an AMS, it becomes a tool for the attackers, not the defenders.

[Mox]

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

Sorry mate but your idea is really bad.

[Figment]

Figment, I didn't expect you to agree with me. That's just how I would do it.

It's what PS1 did from the start and why us "bittervets" keep yammering about how PS1 was better... :/



There's a lot I'd change about the current defenses, but the AMS isn't the problem, it's a symptom of base and cert design. :/

[Canaris]

It was tested, we had to suffer through tech test and part of beta without the AMS right up until the point the dev's figured out that the veterans were quite correct in asking for it to be removed from Gals and added back as a ground vehicle, the game has ever been the stronger for it.

so OP, no way in hell should they be removed

[Kerrec]

It's what PS1 did from the start and why us "bittervets" keep yammering about how PS1 was better... :/



There's a lot I'd change about the current defenses, but the AMS isn't the problem, it's a symptom of base and cert design. :/

There's a big communication problem between you and I. In your reply, I have no idea if it is my suggestion that you say "PS1 did from the start" or if you are defending your suggestion because it is how "PS1 did from the start"? I have no clue what you are trying to say by quoting me.

Yes, there's a big problem with base design. Denying an AMS sunderer from deploying right up against the wall of a base is something that would change "base design". It would make it a bit more defensible, for a bit longer.

Also, you keep bringing up Certs, why? Certs can be completely bypassed with a bit of real world money (Station Cash). Also, once you earn and spend them, what you bought is always there. The problem isn't Certs, it's global resources. Like you say, you blow up one Sunderer, and another one rolls up in its place. The problem is they are too available, and that's a RESOURCE problem.

[MrBloodworth]

No.

Sunderer AMS is infinitely better than the Gal AMS, as already tested and shown.

The uninformed need not start this debate again, its not a unique idea, it does not have merit, and it is not "Something new".

I personally would like a unique ground platform for the AMS, but it is what it is, and its better for game play to have spawning ground based.

[Crator]

Also, you keep bringing up Certs, why? Certs can be completely bypassed with a bit of real world money (Station Cash). Also, once you earn and spend them, what you bought is always there. The problem isn't Certs, it's global resources. Like you say, you blow up one Sunderer, and another one rolls up in its place. The problem is they are too available, and that's a RESOURCE problem.

That's not entirely true. Some things you spend certs on can't be bought with real money. Even still, the openess of the current certification system wouldn't help so much to limit the AMS unless it costs a lot of cert points to obtain. But then you add an issue of too few AMS, at least at first.

IMO, in order to limit the availability of something in-game with certs they would have to have some sort of cost pool for things you can attain. This cost pool could be related to BR, meaning the higher BR you have the more point you have in your pool to spend. Once you use up all your points you cannot obtain another certification, until you get higher in BR. The reason this cost pool related to BR isn't in-game already is mostly due to the F2P business model. Hard for them to add options for people to spend real money then.

[Kerrec]

That's not entirely true. Some things you spend certs on can't be bought with real money. Even still, the openess of the current certification system wouldn't help so much to limit the AMS unless it costs a lot of cert points to obtain. But then you add an issue of too few AMS, at least at first.

IMO, in order to limit the availability of something in-game with certs they would have to have some sort of cost pool for things you can attain. This cost pool could be related to BR, meaning the higher BR you have the more point you have in your pool to spend. Once you use up all your points you cannot obtain another certification, until you get higher in BR. The reason this cost pool related to BR isn't in-game already is mostly due to the F2P business model. Hard for them to add options for people to spend real money then.

If you balance a game based on certs and some arbitrary BR, then the game may be balanced early on. But once the game matures, and almost everyone has that arbitrary BR, then we'd be right back to where we are now.

[Crator]

If you balance a game based on certs and some arbitrary BR, then the game may be balanced early on. But once the game matures, and almost everyone has that arbitrary BR, then we'd be right back to where we are now.

Agreed, the ratio of available cert options to amount of BR that gives points to spend on the certs are used to manage this. There were only 20 or so BR in PS1 in the beginning. The amount of points needed in BR got higher and higher as you went up in rank and was much more stringent in PS1 (i.e. it took a long time to gain enough cert points via BR to get everything you wanted).

[Redshift]

Battles happen halfway between the nearest spawns, if you couldn't put an AMS in a CY then you'd never take a base. You'd have team A respawning 50 meters away every 10 seconds and team b respawning a 5 min drive away.

[Blynd]

If you have a sundy fitted out for AMS role then you loose the weapons but can still carry passengers and its your risk to get to the front line /base alive. This would make ams sundies a bit more vulnerable and make people think a bit rather then having 7 sundies at a small outpost and only 1 Can deploy as AMS so 6 are basically wasted. The ams sundie and gal both need looking at and their roles looking at as the gal is so under used

[Sunrock]

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

Sounds to me like you where not around in beta when the galaxy had an AMS...

[Badjuju]

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

Negative ghost Ryder. Players would spend most of their time traveling and nothing would get taken as reinforcements are always needed. You also remove an aspect of the game which has a tactical significance when the meta game is already week enough.

[Badjuju]

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

Players would spend most of their time traveling and nothing would get taken as reinforcements are always needed. You also remove an aspect of the game which has a tactical significance when the meta game is already week enough. Infantry would also be even less significant than it currently is which would be a step in the wrong direction.

We had AMSs in ps1 and deaths mattered more due to the nature of the meta game. This is mostly due to the outcomes of battles teetered on objectives that provided instant consequences or rewards (hack and hold, down able spawn tubes, debilitating gen) but were deep within bases. Unfortunately with a burning flag system one person surviving an onslaught or one person breaching a defense does not have the same significance as there is allot of time to recover as the flag slowly ticks.

Point being there are other aspects of the game which can be looked at to impact the value of staying alive or getting a kill with out simply making people's lives miserable for dying.

Oh, and we had amazing front lines in PS1 as well. This was partly due to the lattice system (not making the argument its necessary) but also thanks to a more open continents similar to PS2s Esamir or the bottom left quadrant of Indar. Rolling hills with scattered mountains and a few bridges for good choke points, oh and more areas with dense trees to allow for infantry advancements; as oppsosed to funneling troops through the map with the terrain (Amerish and much of Indar). We do see good front lines on essamir and the green areas of Indar while no one fights on Amerish so hopefully the devs pick up on this.

P.s. on an ipad so forgive me if strange out of place words pop up thanks to autocorrect.

[Badjuju]

If you have a sundy fitted out for AMS role then you loose the weapons but can still carry passengers and its your risk to get to the front line /base alive. This would make ams sundies a bit more vulnerable and make people think a bit rather then having 7 sundies at a small outpost and only 1 Can deploy as AMS so 6 are basically wasted. The ams sundie and gal both need looking at and their roles looking at as the gal is so under used

Could be worth looking into, it would be nice to see more variation. Only question is would they be too vulnerable? However I don't see people warding off attackers with in the AMSs too much. It could force more team play as well since people would have to get out of the sundies to defend them. I would be all for testing this to give the sundie more diverse roles and possibly more tactical game play.

This may even pave the way for the return of the cloaked AMS. Right now it would be silly with so many on the field, but if they were utilized less and were more vulnerable I could see it happen. Maybe utilize it in the armor slot so you trade armor for the cloak.

As far as gals go, their role is far less significant due to the nature of the objectives, particularly the burning flag system. I preach it all the time but the hack and hold system along with other ways to cripple a base leaves you with a far more dynamic meta game. The quick hitting attack which the gal drop isn't nearly as impactful or terrifying as it was in PS1. The ticking flag gives all the time in the world to recover if possible. You can't swoop in for a clutch rescuer by stoping a hack or bringing up spawn tubes. Dropping offensively can swing things in your favor but with the burning flag system, if they have more players they will probably recover, especially once spawn rooms are not so campable.

Burning flags and almost no primary structure to bases favors the Zerg and significantly cripples the effectiveness of precision attacks. Unfortunately with current state of the game if your not zerging via gal drop then they are nothing more than floating buses. The panic associated with the gal drop is gone, and only large outfits can be slightly effective with them currently.

[Ruffdog]

Nah. frankly, people in-game should value their lives less not more.

[Rivenshield]

Add a generator inside the base somewhere. The generator powers a device that prevents an AMS from spawning people, within a specific range.

That way attackers will have to cross a no man's land to get to the walls, then destroy a generator that will allow them to move up the AMS.

That is an excellent idea. +1.

[GuyShep]

Honestly, an AMS/Sunderer split would really help. Give the AMS a really high price, while lowering the price of the Sunderer. It'd at least convince people to use the Sunderer in more various ways.

[Rivenshield]

Honestly, an AMS/Sunderer split would really help. Give the AMS a really high price, while lowering the price of the Sunderer. It'd at least convince people to use the Sunderer in more various ways.

Yeah. It's a bit reminiscent of what happened in PS1 when they let everybody run around with BR30 and be a One Man Army. The Sundie is suffering from feature bloat. They need to divorce the fighting functionality from the support functionalty.

[Rothnang]

I don't really mind Sunderer AMS, since Sunderers are pretty easy to track down and destroy.

I actually hate spawn beacons way more than Sunderers, because people always put them down in the most ridiculous places, and their render distance is pretty short, so if they are places a small way outside the base they are impossible to see. It gets so tiresome to have to scour the antenna mast of your base for beacons every two minutes.

[Figment]

There's a big communication problem between you and I. In your reply, I have no idea if it is my suggestion that you say "PS1 did from the start" or if you are defending your suggestion because it is how "PS1 did from the start"? I have no clue what you are trying to say by quoting me.

Most the suggestions I made were done in PS1 and created a gameplay flow that is much smoother and creates a far more natural restrictions on attackers. The AMS in PS1 was never an issue, simply because only a small percentage of players had access to them as they invested in them at the cost of not investing in something else.


If you ever played C&C Tiberian Sun, imagine a game where the most powerful super-units and super-weapons are not numerically restricted to a small percentage of the player's weaponry.

That's what PS2 currently is.

Yes, there's a big problem with base design. Denying an AMS sunderer from deploying right up against the wall of a base is something that would change "base design". It would make it a bit more defensible, for a bit longer.

It would also make it harder to destroy them. Being able to LA on top of them with Boomers (C4 for the newbees), because they place it conveniently close without having to cross an extremely short TTK crossfire is quite considerate of the attacker.

Placing them against walls just makes them siege towers. That's not a problem. The problem is how easy they can get on the walls and spread from tower to tower, not to mention the sheer length of the walls that has to be defended, while the spawns keep getting camped and are too decentralized and easy to cut off from the defenders by forcing a 360º vector attack inside the courtyard, so nobody can get to the walls to defend them in the first place.

AMS placement has virtually nothing to do with it.

Also, you keep bringing up Certs, why? Certs can be completely bypassed with a bit of real world money (Station Cash). Also, once you earn and spend them, what you bought is always there. The problem isn't Certs, it's global resources. Like you say, you blow up one Sunderer, and another one rolls up in its place. The problem is they are too available, and that's a RESOURCE problem.

Because unlimited certs and unlimited vehicle access is moronic design. I talk about certs in a restrictive manner. What we have in PS2 are not cert points, they're consumption points.

You should really have played PS1 to understand the concept of certing one thing excluding the option to cert something else becomes it becomes too costly for you to cert since you can only spend a limited amount of total points which don't grow over time after you reached the highest BR level.

PS2 doesn't restrict you, THUS it's an extremely big issue to balancing numbers of units: there are no restrictions. Resources are not a restriction, since you only need one or two per squad and you can bring 12 per squad if you want. Base benefits are not a restriction, because it's virtually impossible to deny them - by the time you deny someone tech, they just pull MBTs from the warpgate and they have almost the same travel time because the continents are so small (even though too big in relation to the outpost density to determine where they'll go and thus too big to lay ambushes).

[Figment]

Kerrec, try spending 26 points (max. limit before the incredibly stupid BR40 change) on all the certifications in here and see how much you can actually do opposed to a single player in PS2.

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Certifications

Particularly note how much you would NOT have. Note that WITHOUT GETTING ANY SUITS, SUPPORT TOOLS OR INFANTRY WEAPONS beyond the free basic weapons, you'd already need over 30 points to get access to all vehicles.

Meaning it's well beyond impossible to do everything and universal soldiers were a myth.



Until the GM Brewko became developer and added BR40 in 2009, which gifted ALL certifications in game free upon reaching BR40. Basically ruining the entire carefully balanced gameplay balance in a single patch. Since that change we saw a massive increase in support tools being available, a massive increase in heavy assault weaponry (shortest TTK CQC weapons), a heavy increase in MAX units (most powerful CQC units), air vehicles (fastest to move around, excellent firepower and armour which many could not afford if they wanted tanks for instance), BFRs (we all know how loved those were) and basically removed all uniqueness from characters and completely removed the need to play on alternate characters with different playstyles due to their own unique certification setup.


PS2 does that from day 1 and then went a few steps further by creating a larger amount of high firepower units, which were then made even worse by also making them solo vehicle units on top of making them available to everyone.


The consequences are obvious, they'll be spammed in massive numbers and completely dominate and overwhelm any difference in group size by sheer brute force. Which dumbs down the game incredibly both on a tactical, strategic and social level.


So yeah, it's an incredibly big issue, that I can't blame new players for since they can't comprehend as they're used to only small games where massive spam in great group size difference do not occur.

[Karragos]

All this debate about Galaxy spawning had me thinking. Maybe Sunderers should not even be able to spawn players. The ease of spawning makes the game feel like Battlefield or COD. Death would have more consequences and be less cheap if there were no mobile spawns. Players would value their lives more and be more inclined to stick together and organize so as to survive. The Sunderer and Galaxy would become what they really are, player transports. Facility sieges would become much more difficult for the attacker, making defense easier. The frontlines would solidify and change much less rapidly so players would feel like their actions had a lasting impact.

I wish there was a research server where ideas like this could be tested.

Picture the spawn rooms when you are under siege, and how many people do not leave the rooms because they are afraid of dying. Now apply this to those same people who would have to run/fly/drive 100-2000 meters to get back into the battle. These people would probably rarely attack anything. I think your suggestion would dramatically affect combat in the game in a very negative way.

[Kerrec]

Figment,

I understood how PS1 worked as soon as someone said "limited certs" and having to "choose" what to spec. As a game design, I also agree with this philosophy. However, PS1 was a paid subscription game, where the majority wouldn't pay for secondary accounts to be able to outfit another character in a different way.

PS2 is a free to play game. Even if you restricted Certs and BR, people would just make different accounts to have access to all roles. In the end, you'd have the exact same situation, but people would be pissing and moaning about having to change characters all the time.

The only thing I want to say in reply to your posts, is:

IT IS POINTLESS TO CRY ABOUT WHAT IT USED TO BE.

FACTS:

- PS2 will never go back to being a paid subscription only game.
- Being free, anyone can make as many accounts as they wish. You can even make multiple characters per account!
- Therefore, balancing based on limited certs is pointless, because people can make limitless characters.


It only took me about 10 hours of playtime to figure out the whole resource "metagame" in PS2 can't be fixed as is. Let's say they fix the game so vehicles and other force multipliers gain value, IE: they are worth alot of a very limited resource. People will simply create multiple characters to gain multiple pools of resources, so they can play the way they want, without having to earn anything. As long as resources are tied to individual soldiers, it is an unsolveable problem.

Do you see me crying in the forums repeatedly about the issue? I have brought it up, no one was interested, I moved on. Better to spend time towards things that will have a chance, than hit a wall repeatedly (look up Einstein's definition of insanity).

Everytime I see you whine about how it used to be in PS1, I think of Einstein and insanity.

[Figment]

Figment,

I understood how PS1 worked as soon as someone said "limited certs" and having to "choose" what to spec. As a game design, I also agree with this philosophy. However, PS1 was a paid subscription game, where the majority wouldn't pay for secondary accounts to be able to outfit another character in a different way.

PS2 is a free to play game. Even if you restricted Certs and BR, people would just make different accounts to have access to all roles. In the end, you'd have the exact same situation, but people would be pissing and moaning about having to change characters all the time.

Different accounts means different characters. Characters have limitations and it's too much hassle to constantly switch, rejoin squad etc.

Free to play is not an argument either, because even SOE's own F2P DC Universe Online (DCUO) restricts the amount of superpowers and abilities a player can acquire.

They just have the PvP imbalancing stupidity and PvE obsoletion stupidity of your typical MMORPG tiered gear grind for improved player stats by getting better gear.

When gear determines the outcome of battles, that's just as sad a state of affairs as it is when you can have everything.

Free to play doesn't mean you need a grind.

The only thing I want to say in reply to your posts, is:

IT IS POINTLESS TO CRY ABOUT WHAT IT USED TO BE.

No, it's not, because the lessons still need to be learned and the game is still in a form of beta - even if they claim it's been released.

FACTS:

- PS2 will never go back to being a paid subscription only game.
- Being free, anyone can make as many accounts as they wish. You can even make multiple characters per account!
- Therefore, balancing based on limited certs is pointless, because people can make limitless characters.

You could make plenty of characters in PS1 per server, 16 in fact. These are absolutely uninteresting and completely inconsequential facts, because each of those characters faces the same global limitations, be it a different set of limitations per character. But in reality, it was very rare for players to switch characters more than once a session, simply because of the pointlessness of doing so.

To illustrate: If you had two characters on PS2 on the same server (which is possible right now), would you use this to switch from an infil character to a HA character in a fight at the moment you needed to respawn and use it right outside the spawn at that moment?

No, you'd have to logout, log back in, get to the right continent, travel to the right area - by which time it's probably lost or the situational need passed - and then you couldn't switch back to infil again.

So honestly, what the hell is the relevance of these facts that are true in any game, subscription or not?

It only took me about 10 hours of playtime to figure out the whole resource "metagame" in PS2 can't be fixed as is. Let's say they fix the game so vehicles and other force multipliers gain value, IE: they are worth alot of a very limited resource. People will simply create multiple characters to gain multiple pools of resources, so they can play the way they want, without having to earn anything. As long as resources are tied to individual soldiers, it is an unsolveable problem.

Rubbish. That's incredibly easy to balance:

Resources tied to individual characters would mean they'd run out constantly anyway, because the amount of resources per character are tied to the amount of in-game time to replenish. So say you'd make 20 characters. You'd still have to play those long enough to regain them upon reusage.

It'd not be worth the effort to play all those characters to the extend they've all been upgraded. It's not worth the travel time that takes you out of the game constantly.

You can easily use a person's natural aversion to work and effort, by making it unappealing to use logistics to the point it makes it utterly impractical.


An example:
The Lodestar in PS1 could be acquired at one base per continent OR at sanctuary. Usualy had no timer because it wouldn't die quickly (had a lot of hitpoints and would stay out of the danger zone of the fight) and didn't cost resources to obtain and only 3 points spend on Air Support. It would grant your empire a huge tactical repair advantage and the individual a lot of support experience points. Did people get that many? Did people make alt characters to place one (and since they wouldn't deconstruct quickly) then switch back to their own characters? No, far too much effort involved and impractical if the fight moved on from that area. Only the biggest of battles had one, at most three.

Do you see me crying in the forums repeatedly about the issue? I have brought it up, no one was interested, I moved on. Better to spend time towards things that will have a chance, than hit a wall repeatedly (look up Einstein's definition of insanity).

Everytime I see you whine about how it used to be in PS1, I think of Einstein and insanity.

When I hear you say this, I'm thinking of a spineless creature with no exoskeleton.

[Kerrec]

I play the game as it is, and find ways to have fun. Do you?

Back to balancing with certs/br:

Say I'm part of an outfit. We have a balanced squad/platoon. I have my role, within that squad/platoon. Something happens, say our AMS Sundy gets taken out. The roles get shifted about, and I'm told I need to log onto a character with a certed AMS Sundy and drive it to the objective while the squad/platoon hunkers down and holds out. I do so.

So much for balancing the "value" of an AMS Sundy with certs/br. An organized outfit will have organization in it, and people will have characters and accounts with organized roles. Via organization, they will render the Cert/BR "balancing act" you keep talking about, pointless.

You continue to try to talk balance in this game as if it's a one on one shooter. It is not.

What you propose "might" limit the options for lone wolves, but will do nothing for organized play.

[Figment]

I play the game as it is, and find ways to have fun. Do you?

Relevance? Don't see any.

But to have the courtesy of answering the question: in general I don't like the gameplay because of being faced with rather weird decisions in every form of battle I try: infantry, vehicle, air, offense, defense. Each of these has a lot of imbalanced features that removes the fun out of it by either creating too large a power distance for competion, making you leave fights constantly because you don't have a choice, or too shallow a challenge to actually feel you accomplished something.

The game is too shallow for me and I don't play a lot because of it. And less and less others do. Which is a fact, too. Great that you can enjoy a game despite of massive flaws, but I don't see how that excuses the flaws from existing. It's not an argument, it's simply you lowering your standards and expectations for the game.

Back to balancing with certs/br:

Say I'm part of an outfit. We have a balanced squad/platoon. I have my role, within that squad/platoon. Something happens, say our AMS Sundy gets taken out. The roles get shifted about, and I'm told I need to log onto a character with a certed AMS Sundy and drive it to the objective while the squad/platoon hunkers down and holds out. I do so.

So much for balancing the "value" of an AMS Sundy with certs/br. An organized outfit will have organization in it, and people will have characters and accounts with organized roles. Via organization, they will render the Cert/BR "balancing act" you keep talking about, pointless.

You continue to try to talk balance in this game as if it's a one on one shooter. It is not.

What you propose "might" limit the options for lone wolves, but will do nothing for organized play.

I see you continue to be ignorant and arrogant on how things work in such an environment by theorycrafting without practical experience of having played such a game. The scenario you describe is highly inconsequential, occured next to not at all unless a change was needed for a session of over an hour worth of playtime and far, far, far less powerful than the current situation where you have it anyway and therefore certainly no excuse to just having it anyway.


Play PS1 for years in an active environment under BR20-BR25 rule set. Then we'll talk again.

Since you can't, you're just going to have to live with the fact you're ignorant and inexperienced and I have more authority on this matter due to having that experience. That's not arrogance, that's actual fact.




Don't try to claim authority on something you can't have it on.

[Kerrec]

Wow dude, I'm sorry I caused you to rage out (again).

You have authority in a game that is now obsolete. The fact you keep going back to that game and how it worked, even though it will never work with the business model that PS2 lives in, shows that you are bordering on insanity with your inflexibility and repetitive insistence on things that will not happen.

I play the game, and find ways to have fun. On any given game session, I may do the infantry thing in different ways. Aggressive flanking with the LA, or careful team work with an engineer/medic/HA. Or I'll decide I want to play in a vehicle, or try getting good at flying. I'll try to defend bases as long as it's not obviously pointless. I'll back cap empty bases to keep the other factions from gaining momentum by thinking they have a chance to get a continent lock. Whatever. I find ways to play that makes the game fun, at that given time.

I adapt to the reality of the situation. This is my point. You do not adapt. You want it status quo, the way it was and should always be. You are so fixed on this that you can not have FUN playing. So you don't play much, and spend more time in forums lamenting about the "good ol' days".

The game has flaws. I do not deny this. The bases are indefensible. Too much emphasis is given on cert farming. The metagame is shallow and hardly worth it. Resources are worthless and population trumps any advantage your empire may have with regards to resources.

However, I seem to be much more optimistic than you. Given time these flaws will get fixed. In novel ways, not (always) how it was done before. And if game mechanics or business realities blatently keep things from being possible, I don't bash my head crying about it. There's always another way.

[Hamma]

I can't think of any reason the sunderer AMS should be removed.. I think it's in a pretty good spot atm. The problem is anyone can pull anything rather than in PS1 you had to put points in to pull it at all.

[Mortromain]

instead of removing AMS, maybe they could limit the number of player being able to spawn from it :

12 players can subscribe to the AMS and respawn continuously from it

[Kerrec]

Or have a fixed quantity of resources in the AMS. Once depleted, no more spawning and the Sundy has to go to a base (whatever kind to be determined) to refill.

Gives more emphasis on medics reviving, and succeeding with an attack, instead of just "spamming" lives until something changes.

[Figment]

Wow dude, I'm sorry I caused you to rage out (again).

Why do you assume it's a rage out? You should simply accept it as fact that you're trying to portray theory as fact, when it's been proven to be false fiction already.

I'm simply pointing out in a very normal, controlled manner that you're not suited for that sort of theorycrafting, because you simply aren't.

You have authority in a game that is now obsolete. The fact you keep going back to that game and how it worked, even though it will never work with the business model that PS2 lives in, shows that you are bordering on insanity with your inflexibility and repetitive insistence on things that will not happen.

You're never judgmental, are you? What a lot of random assumption-jump-to-conclusions in one paragraph.



And you don't seem to have much understanding of the businessmodel nor seem to be interested in considering alternatives to or improvements on it.

Why are you even debating them if you have nothing to contribute and have no vision of your own?

I adapt to the reality of the situation. This is my point. You do not adapt. You want it status quo, the way it was and should always be. You are so fixed on this that you can not have FUN playing. So you don't play much, and spend more time in forums lamenting about the "good ol' days".

It seems to me you're absolutely obsessed with pinning that image on someone else just to dismiss them, rather than actually knowing how things are.

I don't want a status quo. I want sense. I want improvement. I want evolution. I don't want insanity, chaos and random alternatives implemented that don't work well together in a MMOFPS game, which is what we have now. You simply don't want to give credit to my critique and suggestions, and for some weird reason especially not when it puts PS1 in a good light. Does it not stroke with your prejudices about PS1 perhaps? Many of PS1's systems (NOT ALL) made far more sense from a gameplay improvement point of view. So naturally, I'd prefer those over failing PS2 systems because the context is extremely similar, just in a less thoroughly developed state.

I can "adapt" to playing the current game quite well, thank you (I've even started using MAXes and aircraft, which I never did in PS1). I can and have. However, as a consequence, I absolutely don't like playing it for reasons shared by thousands of other players, new and old as I know what it can and could be like instead. I'd even say should. I'm extremely capable of playing PS2 in the way you can be very succesful in PS2 by exploiting its systems and purchasing all the OP weaponry to give you incredible competitive edges to the point there's no competition, but I choose not to because it makes the gameplay experience for other players and myself worse. I have my standards and principles.

And for the record "adapting" is not actually an argument in favour of anything or that you don't understand it. It means you're capable of handling the current situation. Having conflicting standards with the way one has to adapt is neither nostalgia nor a negative value for a person to have. It simply means the game does not fit expectations and results in complaints and critique. The "adapt / L2P" orders provided by people with no hope, change or need for improvement are actually a problematic issue: they propagate a status quo. Especially bad ones. Where as I try to drive PS2 to a greater level, you try to retain it in a piss poor state you admit exists.

Where you see current interaction and stop envisioning and respecting wanted interaction (for yourself and others) and order people to force themselves to accept (for eternity) an unwanted interaction, I look further.


Maybe you should consider that for a change: you and your apathy are a handbreak on PS2 gameplay evolution. Not stimulating it to reach higher levels. Even denouncing improvements for the status quo retention of things which you can force yourself to enjoy even though you know them to be flawed.


Maybe you should set some of your standards and principles a bit higher instead of claiming that one who choses not to exploit flawed design is not adapting to how the game is intended to be played.

I bring forth design solutions that are not obsolete, because they WOULD actually work in the context of this game. I would not propose them if I would not see them function. Not to mention I bring forth solutions that can be implemented with ease if the will to implement them is present within the dev team.

You're just to obtuse and status-quo reliant and accepting to see that, while deeming "old solutions" obsolete, simply because you don't know them, never experienced them, nor understand their impact on the game, because you simply are ignorant and inexperienced. You look at PS1 and see a dead game. You don't see potential. You don't see benefits. You don't see the subsystems, you just see one thing: a 2003 game who's populace died out after 10 years.

You you are completely blind to it and catagorically denounce its systems because it's a subscription game?! FFS, we used to fire bullets in PS1, can we not fire bullets because it's a F2P game now!? OF COURSE NOT! Have you any idea what a load of rubbish you put out? You don't understand a single thing about the game's (sub)systems and you're unwilling to accept that because it would hurt your ego! That's all! Not because I'm living in the past, but because you cannot accept that the past can be part of the future!

Perhaps you're scared of admitting someone is more passionate and critical than you because that person does have those qualities you lack? I don't know. I can't tell. Only you know that.

But I do know what you lack, what you fault: it's that you think you are knowledgeable on what is and isn't possible. Not to mention that you claim to know what can and cannot change. Last I checked, you're not a dev. And last I checked, whatever a dev says can change a week later. They said Galaxy AMSes wern't going to ever change because it was a streamlined improvement to the game and we had to adapt. I ask you now: "What Galaxy AMSes?!"

They created four different resources. Where are those now? Replaced by three entirely different resources. And they think they'll completely change and overhaul those at some point too!

But your attitude is what makes you annoying, because it makes you pull tons of non-arguments out of your arse and present them as "fact". You cannot be reasoned with as much as you think you can, because you're actually a very biased person yourself that claims optimism, yet has admitted to have lost all hope of positive changes he'd like to see after an initial posting. You lack the experience, vision, determination and ambition to see positive changes come through and that's exactly why they'll never come through!

And that's all from your own admission, you just haven't realised it. You think I enjoy telling you this? No, I don't. Do I think you'll listen? No, I don't. Does that make me wrong in judging you? Ask that to yourself first, before defaulting to saying I'm wrong about it.

The game has flaws. I do not deny this. The bases are indefensible. Too much emphasis is given on cert farming. The metagame is shallow and hardly worth it. Resources are worthless and population trumps any advantage your empire may have with regards to resources.

However, I seem to be much more optimistic than you. Given time these flaws will get fixed. In novel ways, not (always) how it was done before. And if game mechanics or business realities blatently keep things from being possible, I don't bash my head crying about it. There's always another way.

That isn't what you're doing. What you're doing is sticking your head in the sand and thinking all problems will go away by not addressing them at all!

Meanwhile, you stop seeing the bigger picture and interconnectivity of flaws, if you ever saw it anyway. You see parts of the problems, but you don't see how your solutions would affect the game, because you don't have the full picture.

You call something old and then declare it a non-alternative, simply because you fail to understand its impact, implementation, implementability and relevance. You easily pull the "nostalgia"-argument simply because someone else does see the value of an in PS terms, "old-school" approach, even if it's more modern than anything BF, CoD, or MoH or other games have ever tried.

You also seem to be constantly unaware (which isn't surprising, because of your small frame of reference) that I'm continuously proposing improvements, evolutions and ideas that were not in PS1 or implemented differently from PS1 as well. Why? Because it doesn't seem to meet your extremely selective image of me and others you deem obsolete.


THAT is your problem. This isn't me raging, this is me critiqueing you fairly. You're just too full of yourself to allow an analysis be made based on what you've done sofar without taking it as an insult or rage. Passionate debate is not rage. It's showing spirit.

[Kerrec]

I'm not going to reply to that wall of text point for point. As for who is blind and who isn't according to you and me, I don't care. I know how I feel on that issue, and I'm content letting other people make up their own minds too.

I do take issue with you stating that I want to bury my head in the sand and ignore issues. I entered into this thread to make a suggestion for a CHANGE. A way to ADD to the game without making a huge change to the existing mechanics. You slammed my suggestion because it wasn't PS1.

I don't have a prejudice against PS1. I have a prejudice against people that dismiss ideas because it's not like PS1.

I have stated my reasoning why I don't think balancing can be done by certs/BR. I stand by my reasoning. It is based on the fundamental fact that this is a free to play game (I'll eat my words if this game ever switches to a subscription based model) and accounts/characters can be infinite. I don't care to convince you. I only care to convince people that are going to try and contribute to this thread that is quickly becoming way off topic (again) because of you and I.

I have now made 2 suggestion in this thread. One is prefectly doable, AND it's in line with what Higby has already suggested he's going to do, I just refined it a bit. The second is more wishful thinking, as I don't like the fact that resources are tied to characters instead of faction. But I still made it. And I don't care if those ideas were already implemented in PS1 or not. I still stand by them.

[Figment]

You slammed my suggestion because it wasn't PS1.

Quote please.

Liar.

[Kerrec]

SOI to prevent spawn beacon droppods: yes. Mostly to give more value to Galaxy Drops and infiltrators.

Higher and closed off walls: yes. Mostly to make defense against Light Assaults getting in a bit more viable (even if with the current designs of walls and the future designs of walls I don't have much faith it will prevent or improve any such issues).

Placing gens in more defensible locations within the natural habitats and routes of defenders: yes.

Walls with wall-walks: yes.

Complete curtain walls to prevent AMSes from just driving in at random: yes.

But an SOI to prevent AMSes might simply be a bit much. It's a ground unit. Same to the SOE idea of preventing AMS placement in the current vehicle bays. That's silly. It's the one thing that allows at least some base defense right now.




I'd rather limit the sheer amount of them by having players make choices between vehicles available to them and which vehicles they'll never be able to pull instead.

We have a numerical issue with vehicles, not a proximity issue: kill one, next takes its place. Kill five, next takes its place. Same issue as with tanks and aircraft: they're simply too available in a rotation sequence per player.

And that's down to the cert sytem. Not the physical in-game AMS placement restrictions.

There you go.

[Figment]

There you go.

But an SOI to prevent AMSes might simply be a bit much. It's a ground unit. Same to the SOE idea of preventing AMS placement in the current vehicle bays. That's silly. It's the one thing that allows at least some base defense right now.

In the highlighted text (or any of the other bits), please point out where it says "Because PS1 did not do that", rather than:

- Ground unit (ie. limited by ground obstacles)
- PS2 vehicle bays (in PS1 that was disallowed, btw), needed because of defense



You recall that bit for instance where I said it's not necessary to remove the AMS from walls because you can actually take those out easier than the AMSes placed further away due to having Light Assault + C4?


Is that also PS1? No? Not at all? OH? REALLY NOW?

In fact, EVERYTHING IN THERE is related to the PS2 context.


I repeat, you're a liar and anti-PS1 prejudiced git who tries to claim I'm nostalgia driven where I'm basing my argumentation entirely on context and logical logistical argumentation.

If you'd actually read what I write instead of putting words in my mouth that you hope to be there, then you might actually learn something. Instead, you're making a fool of yourself.

As usual when something PS1 related is concerned, because you have absolutely no knowledge of the matter.

[Kerrec]

This is my last reply to you Figment. You are just a troll and you've grown too fat off my time.

I made a suggestion.

You slammed it.

You continually claim I have no credibility because I don't have PS1 experience. You RANTED that you have the "authority" to make suggestions for PS2 because you have PS1 experience, and I do not.

Hence, you slammed my suggestion because it has no basis in PS1. I don't have the "authority" to participate in this thread or forum. According to you.

Please forgive me for not quoting and creating walls of text.

[Figment]

This is my last reply to you Figment. You are just a troll and you've grown too fat off my time.

I made a suggestion.

You slammed it.

OMG I SLAMMED YOUR SUGGESTION, IT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE BASED ON A REASONING OTHER THAN IT NOT HAVING BEEN IN PS1! :doh:

You can't possibly simply have bad ideas, can you?



The one trolling, is you.


It's not likely you ever read any of my posts, so I don't see how you not reading any more is going to change anything.

You continually claim I have no credibility because I don't have PS1 experience. You RANTED that you have the "authority" to make suggestions for PS2 because you have PS1 experience, and I do not.

Because you don't. And that has nothing to do with your AMS SOI suggestion. That has everything to do with your inane ranting about how PS1 systems are obsolete. And randomly relate it to F2P systems, that have nothing to do with those systems you refered to.

You CLAIMED that having multiple accounts would negate something akin to a PS1 limited cert system, which I disproved because PS1 already HAD THAT YET IT WORKED FLAWLESSLY. You then continued to repeat your theory and claimed it as fact, despite being utterly new to the concept. That's your problem you continue to post random ramblings with no basis in reality and yet try to pass it off as fact.

YOU IGNORE THAT BECAUSE YOU DEMAND TO BE RIGHT WITOUT HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE ON PS1. THAT IS WHAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT YOU AND WHY I RANTED.

Hence, you slammed my suggestion because it has no basis in PS1. I don't have the "authority" to participate in this thread or forum. According to you.

You're not very good at reading and linking information, are you?

[Maidere]

Each sundy should have a spawn limit that can be "resupplied" on the vehicle ammo stations. Also platoon-locked sundy's wont be able to spawn random crowd.
Gravezerging must go.

[Kerrec]

Each sundy should have a spawn limit that can be "resupplied" on the vehicle ammo stations. Also platoon-locked sundy's wont be able to spawn random crowd.
Gravezerging must go.

That could work too.

Maybe make it so you can only pull a Sunderer if you're part of a platoon? Of course, you'd have to fix it so you have at least a full squad to be able to start a platoon?

[Crator]

So I'm confused, what exactly are we trying to fix? AMS spam?

It just sounds like limiting amount of spawns based on resources could be a logistical nightmare. Which in turn would reduce infantry fighting even more. IDK about you guys but I want more infantry fighting. Not less.

[Ghoest9]

@ OP

No. Bad idea.

Sundy placement and defense if one of the more fun parts of PS2.
They are actually really easy to kill if defenders have a slight amount of organization.

[Rothnang]

I would like it if there was some kind of top shelf infantry that you can't pull from a Sunderer so that there would be more of an incentive to use transport units. Right now it feels like dropping guys with a Galaxy is kind of pointless because all infantry is designed to die and respawn, so it's just not like you can drop your badass commandos somewhere and expect them to be very effective without a spawn point nearby.

[Figment]

So I'm confused, what exactly are we trying to fix? AMS spam?

It just sounds like limiting amount of spawns based on resources could be a logistical nightmare. Which in turn would reduce infantry fighting even more. IDK about you guys but I want more infantry fighting. Not less.

The OP thinks sundy-AMS in general would have to be removed.


I don't think they have any idea what they're suggesting at this point.

Platoon/squad spawning on an AMS with interference radius or by ignoring interference radius (which was suggested elsewhere), is not a good idea. First of all, it would mean the interference radius would be removed. Second, it would mean you'd have an AMS for each individual squad or platoon, meaning opposed to having one, two or three to deal with now, we're already talking over a dozen or a dozen and a half for a group of 200 players.

You should keep in mind there's simply no room for that amount of AMSes in the terrain. Squads and platoons would start fighting for the best spots and blow each other's AMSes up at times (doesn't get you much grief since you only have to drop two things or one a person on a vehicles). Even though it wouldn't happen that much, this behaviour would be stimulated. Especially as small squads would start getting in the way of biger squads by their AMS placement. So that's unwanted friction between allies: they're not cooperating anymore, they're competing within the same empire.

Also, simply because it would start to require dozens of AMSes in the same area, which as we saw earlier - despite of not the entire zerg spawning at each - leads to a diffusion of defense targets: defenders won't know which AMS to prioritise, they will need so many missiles, mines and C4 to blow them all out of the water, it's not going to work. Defenders didn't have enough targets already? Plus, if you bring a number of extra AMSes and switch to those after one dies, nothing changes. We already bring backups now and in Tech Test we sometimes saw groups of five repair/AMS sundies, so that's quite likely.

On top of that, placing the one Sunderer that changes the tide would stop being the case. Both for offense and defense. This reduces the satisfaction.

On top of that, defense around Sunderers would water down, since less people spawn at these.


So simply put, it wouldn't solve the problem in question. It'd only change it. A squad only AMS would be nice as an addition for spec ops teams, but they'd have to have different rules from the standard AMS and be very careful with this sort of thing, because it can end up very disruptive to flow if done wrong.




Limiting the amount of times one can spawn somewhere is not a good idea either, because it would hurt both offense and defense alike, but especially defense as you cannot replenish your AMSes due to auto-drive + shield camp alone (if you can get one out at all). Meanwhile the attacker can get new ones more easily from surrounding outposts, warpgate and hacked terminals. The one way flow would strengthen. Plus, you don't know how long an engagement lasts, so you may well be ending fights arbitrarily, just as they are getting good.

It's true the attacker wouldn't be able to keep up a consistent flow, which might seem to be in favour of the defender. But does that mean it is easier to defend, or that attackers would simply bring more spares and replacements when one is almost out of tickets?

And how many tickets are we talking about? How many spawns a minute are currently needed?

Limiting by tickets would have quite a few consequences in the psychology of the fight. It could lead to more hanging back because a death is more vital, which means less people dare to push and the fight becomes more stale than dynamic. Can have positive effects, can simply make it boring. Would it after all, not encourage AMS camping and camping in general more without trying to push in but waiting for others to get out? Especially defenders in the current base setup are constantly forced through crossfires and outnumbered and ducks in a barrel, so they'd run out of tickets much faster. It could well mean outer perimeters of outposts fall even sooner than they do now.

Basically you get miniature randomised tickets per group instances within the overarching battle on top of group size imbalances, instead of a consistent battle, which probably hurts the group that has a numerical, logistical and reinforcement disadvantage most (which in PS2, is the defender, especially if it's a smaller group).

Is that the type of gameplay solution we're looking for? I don't think so.




On the other hand, we could solve everything by simply restricting the amount of players with access to the AMS in the first place by having players select which vehicles are available to them and making the logistics of switching characters unappealing for quick switches between characters (whether on the same or other account - shouldn't matter).


Why make convoluted ideas that probably won't work, when a proven to work solution is right there in front of us?

[OCNSethy]

Why make convoluted ideas that probably won't work, when a proven to work solution is right there in front of us?

What is this proven solution you speak of? I cant seem to follow this thread with all it's tit for tat posts :(

[Figment]

What is this proven solution you speak of? I cant seem to follow this thread with all it's tit for tat posts :(

Certification limits.

[OCNSethy]

Certification limits.

Ahhh,,, thanks

[Crator]

Certification limits.

Yeah, but with how few vehicle choices there are IDK why SOE would limit their use. Especially when there are things in the cash shop that can be used to spend on each different vehicle. I understand it would help tremendously with this issue, I just don't see this fix becoming reality due to the F2P system.

[Figment]

I don't see the issue with the cash shop.

Do you spend station cash on all the vehicles, or just the one(s) you really have a connection with?

Besides, since those purchases will be account wide, they'd count for alternate characters. In fact, it could make alternate characters far more appealing and thus cause significantly more reason for more cosmetics to be sold and apply to various characters for very distinct looks. Currently there is no incentive to make more than one character due to the way certs are unlocked.

So I don't really see the problem there: you could get a lot of pilot related goods on your account for a pilot type character, a lot of sundy goods for pimpbustruckdriver, etc.

That shouldn't affect sales.




In fact, it could make certification grouping between rifle types more appealing. You buy them for your account now, but if you were to have to make choices between carbines and SMGs for instance on a character next to vehicles, suits and support specializations, this could actually stimulate sales, because you'd purchase different weapons for different characters who certed into different groups linked to their unit type.

I mean, you wouldn't buy a gun for a character, but for all characters on the account. Then you simply select which gun groups your individual characters have access too and your purchased guns will be available to only certain characters, still all characters you want access to those weapons on. It would simply cost you some other certs.



I've proposed this other thing in relation to that before:

You could see unlocking certs as we do now as "researching". Researching something means it becomes available as an option (much like you now select one of the options), but then actually have up to a maximum amount of skillpoints to spend on the amount of options you can use on a character. So a double layer of certification.

Research could be shared by all characters, while skillpoints would be individual per character and for instance directly related to BattleRank.

[AThreatToYou]

Remove S-AMS ----> VehicleSide 2 is finalized.
Remove S-AMS & add proper AMS ----> Unit has more clearly defined role

[Rockit]

I am trying to figure out what the issue is here? You guys don't want AMS at all or no radius exclusion? This shouldn't require some high brow discussion, just bake it down someone please?

[Palerion]

@ OP

No. Bad idea.

Sundy placement and defense if one of the more fun parts of PS2.
They are actually really easy to kill if defenders have a slight amount of organization.

/agree.

We need a little bit of consistent combat, which AMS provides. Two minutes of flying to a base to die within a minute would SUCK.

And some deaths just aren't avoidable.

[Crator]

I don't see the issue with the cash shop.

Do you spend station cash on all the vehicles, or just the one(s) you really have a connection with?

So I don't really see the problem there: you could get a lot of pilot related goods on your account for a pilot type character, a lot of sundy goods for pimpbustruckdriver, etc.

That shouldn't affect sales.

It's the only reason I can see why they chose to have hardly anything related to BR progression. I just can't see why they would forfeit good game play restrictions like these unless they wanted to try to monetize using this progression model. Almost everything can be related to cash purchases, even gaining cert points quicker which allow access to every progression item in the game, other then more loadouts which are related to BR and you only get 3 max per character.

[Rockit]

Matt, do you follow these concerns?

[Figment]

It's the only reason I can see why they chose to have hardly anything related to BR progression. I just can't see why they would forfeit good game play restrictions like these unless they wanted to try to monetize using this progression model. Almost everything can be related to cash purchases, even gaining cert points quicker which allow access to every progression item in the game, other then more loadouts which are related to BR and you only get 3 max per character.

Decided to make a thread on it, hopefully it explains it well enough, you know how concise I am.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/cp-research-points-shared-by-alt-chars-introduce-limited-resettable-cert-system-on-top.86218/

We'll see what the masses think.

[OCNSethy]

Decided to make a thread on it, hopefully it explains it well enough, you know how concise I am.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/cp-research-points-shared-by-alt-chars-introduce-limited-resettable-cert-system-on-top.86218/

We'll see what the masses think.

Your a brave soul, placing a thread on the Sony forum ;)

[Figment]

Eh I pretty much get one like for each post I make. :p

Considering I only make development suggestions there, I'll take my chances... ;)

[Crator]

Good post Figment. Hope it gets some attention!

[Mortromain]

Platoon/squad spawning on an AMS with interference radius or by ignoring interference radius (which was suggested elsewhere), is not a good idea. First of all, it would mean the interference radius would be removed. Second, it would mean you'd have an AMS for each individual squad or platoon, meaning opposed to having one, two or three to deal with now, we're already talking over a dozen or a dozen and a half for a group of 200 players.


i wasn't suggesting the squad limited AMS without the interference radius, we don't want huge parking of sundies in front of bases like in front of malls.
The idea is to spread the front line until a breach is open and a spawn base is captured.
I reckon 3/4 squads respawning should be a limit to assault an outpost or a tower (would need changes to the crown)

Squads and platoons would start fighting for the best spots and blow each other's AMSes up at times (doesn't get you much grief since you only have to drop two things or one a person on a vehicles). Even though it wouldn't happen that much, this behaviour would be stimulated. Especially as small squads would start getting in the way of biger squads by their AMS placement. So that's unwanted friction between allies: they're not cooperating anymore, they're competing within the same empire.

I agree, it would need more in game tools to coordinate squads.

I suggested this to limit the flow of attackers and to force a little more travel time after death. My feeling is that people should think twice before running to certain death, the game feel like an instant action FPS which hinder the MMO side.

Why make convoluted ideas that probably won't work, when a proven to work solution is right there in front of us?

Because I don't like your solution, i like having a character that can do everything, I liked EVE for it and I like it in this game too :)

[raw]

AMSes should be split from Sunderers though because they do infringe on the transport (especially gatecrasher) role too much IMO.

Equipping an AMS should simply reduce the transport slots from 12 to 3.

[Mietz]

Decided to make a thread on it, hopefully it explains it well enough, you know how concise I am.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/cp-research-points-shared-by-alt-chars-introduce-limited-resettable-cert-system-on-top.86218/

We'll see what the masses think.

While I like this, the problem becomes apparent with the current cert system and the certs themselves that are generally boring, uninspired and classes not balanced in between each other.

The progression you propose is great, its a model I've seen done successfully in other MMOs, but the progression in PS2 is minimal on a class/vehicle level and many, many certs (bar weapons) are shared across classes.

(see my total unique PS2 cert sheet: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12895612/New%20folder/PS2%20cert%20sheet.xls)

With your cert mechanics overhaul you would need a complete redesign of the abilities to make them more enticing and useful.

[Figment]

@Miez: I'd agree with that to some extend. It depends what kind of depth we are talking about.

The cert system I propose would probably be most appealing with an class-inventory system cross-over of sorts (probably easiest to balance with trade-off slots for weaponry and tools, as well as ammo/tool/medical slots if we speak in PS2 terms). That could create a bit more uniqueness within the setup of a class too.

Compared to other MMOs we shouldn't want a power progression, but a playstyle preference that is situational and somewhat flexible at the same time.

The certifications we have in PS2 currently do that to some extend, but there are very clear "preferable" setups, particularly for specific vehicles. I'd also rather see people invest their certs more into empowering teammembers. Currently when you build up a tank character, you focus on your own firepower and survivability and a strong team tank is an afterthought. Solo setups... Meh.

The devs should probably look more into what World of Tanks and World of Warplanes do with customization of tanks and take that a few steps further.

Currently only the gunbarrel changes, but there could be different types of turrets with different builds too with different 3rd person views, rotation speeds, armour levels, that sort of thing. Of course, with the current amount of vehicles that is already demanding on many rigs. So it would be good to have the total amount of units decrease a bit. This could allow for other balance changes too that may make player roles better defined and more enjoyable.

@Mort: it is understandable the convenience can be comfortable. However, at some point the player becomes pampered and isn't challenged to come up with new strategies to overcome a handicap, when handicaps are easily interchanged. The PS1 player did have to work with permanent weaknesses and it provided a lot more depth to tactical outwitting of other players as you learned their strengths and weaknesses. It isn't like you would have to give up everything, but it would make experiences outside your common setup more special than mundane.

Nobody would stop you from creating multiple characters. It is a bit more effort, but that shouldn't be a problem. :)



The only thing that concerns me currently is that certain suits (the basic grunts: engi, ha and medic), have restrictions on what weapons they can interchange. I'm personally thinking there should be a less specialised class, the standard class, which doesn't get special abilities, but more access to fill in their weapon slots as they see fit. A blank slate custom class bassically.

Imagine a suit without shield, without cloak, without group healing, without turrets or ammo packs, but more like the agile in PS1: one utility slot that can hold one tool or medkit, one main weapon slot (rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle or AV) and one pistol slot (handgun or explosives).

It'd be the basic suit from which all other suits would become specialisations. It would be worse at everything, but can be customized to fulfill specific jobs.

[psijaka]

Don't agree with the OP at all, the Sunderer AMS adds some really interesting dynamics to the game. And I speak as someone who is a habitual defender; poor defensibility of the bases should be tackled by other methods (terrain, obstacles, spawn points etc).

Edit - and I delight in blowing up deployed Sunderers! Really makes me feel as if I'm doing something significant, even if I die in the attempt. A well placed Sundy can add real strength to an attack, but it is also the attacker's weak point; take it down and the attack often sputters out.

[ShadetheDruid]

The problem, as I see it, is you're trying to solve a specific problem with a complicated blanket solution (that affects everyone, not just the people you're targetting) rather than a simple one.

Let me give you two scenarios:

Person A has a lot of time to play the game, therefore has a lot of certs to spend. They play everything, and have everything certed out to a decent level. They can switch instantly to a new role whenever the situation arises. I'm sure we could agree, they aren't specialised and aren't challenged by differences in situation.

Person B doesn't play everything, and instead certs out the things they find fun, and focuses their certs deep into specific roles. They play for a couple of hours, the first hour as a pure support engie, certed out specifically for that role (which sometimes gets them in trouble, because they have no way to deal with tanks, for example). In the second hour, they come up to the Crown, where a bunch of snipers are harrassing their troops as they try to get up the hill. Person B switches to infiltrator, which they have specialised specifically through certs to be a pure sniper (again, getting in trouble when it comes to close range engagements - something they aren't kitted out for), and starts providing counter-sniping support to the troops moving in. You'd be hard pressed to argue they haven't specialised at all, even if they have three or four specialisations they can switch between.

Now, I don't see why the solution to person A should affect person B; person B isn't the problem. Yes, person B could have two separate characters, but if they're not being a problem why put extra barriers (having to log out, log in, get back to where they were, at which point the battle may have moved on and they might not be needed in that role) in the way of them switching?

If you'd have proposed something simple, like maybe a suggestion that to switch classes you have to go to a terminal in a hard spawn point (ie. AMSes are just for resupply), and maybe that vehicles cost a chunk of certs to unlock before you can spawn them, it might be a bit more reasonable from person B's perspective.

(Person B is me, by the way, if it wasn't obvious :p ).