AMS vs Facility spawning

[qbert2]

Two things I'd like to see regarding the way spawning works that would better help attacker vs defender balance.

One, spawning at the AMS should have a longer timer than spawning at a facility. At the moment it's faster to spawn at an AMS than a spawn room. This is pretty counter-intuitive imho. It should be the opposite and the difference between the two should be increased.

Two, engineers should get a AMS spawn interference deployable. This can only be deployed outside and it slows down the spawn timer at the AMSes in its radius. I see two potential cert trees for this. One, for an increase radius, and another for an increase interference time. They may or may not be mutually exclusive.

This would give a nice alternative to the current method of suicide rushing AMSes with tank mines when that is removed / fixed.

[Ghoest9]

One, spawning at the AMS should have a longer timer than spawning at a facility. At the moment it's faster to spawn at an AMS than a spawn room. This is pretty counter-intuitive imho. It should be the opposite and the difference between the two should be increased.




Why? Being "counter intuitive" is not a reason to change a peripheral game element thats set up for game play reasons.

If you have a reason that it would improve game play - you should share that.

[qbert2]

If it's not obvious why it doesn't make sense then there's not much point in having a discussion about it.

[fierce deity]

Agreed. Why AMSes get shorter respawn timers than facilities with dedicated spawn room has always made no sense to me.

An AMS jammer would be cool, especially if you can't find the AMS. However, wouldn't it still be more effective to find it then attack it with Heavy assaults or Light Assaults with C4?

[fierce deity]

Why? Being "counter intuitive" is not a reason to change a peripheral game element thats set up for game play reasons.

If you have a reason that it would improve game play - you should share that.

It would improve game play by giving an advantage to the defenders at a base. I am of the opinion that it should be easier to defend a base than attack it.

[Whiteagle]

Agreed. Why AMSes get shorter respawn timers than facilities with dedicated spawn room has always made no sense to me.

An AMS jammer would be cool, especially if you can't find the AMS. However, wouldn't it still be more effective to find it then attack it with Heavy assaults or Light Assaults with C4?
Indeed, it's especially annoying when you DON'T want to spawn at the Sunderer but it's at the top of the list because it refreshes faster.

As for AMS Jammers, Figment made a pretty good argument for bringing back the Sphere of Influence mechanic from the Original Planetside.

In addition to providing Radar inside of a Base, this separate console would also prevent Spawn Beacons or an AMS from being deployed within a certain radius of the facility.

[Neutral Calypso]

A fascinating idea. Would force you to find some crevice out in the boonies to hide the sundy rather than charge right into the middle of a tower and deploy. Might make for more interesting gameplay.

[ThatGoatGuy]

Indeed, it's especially annoying when you DON'T want to spawn at the Sunderer but it's at the top of the list because it refreshes faster.\

1. The thing at the top of the list SHOULD be the closest thing to you (Unless it's green, and that's where your squad leader is)

2. The reason AMS spawn cooldown is less than a base's is because it supports teamwork. It makes the fight continue to flow at a faster rate. How fun do you think it would be if you just killed a mass amount of people, they you have to wait 2 minutes to spawn, and then walk ALL THE WAY BACK.

3. AMS jammer would be pretty slick, but I can see them being spammed all the way around a base, completely ruining the chance to put a sundy anywhere near a base. If it had like a small jamming radius but larger deployment radius, it "mite b cool."

[Whiteagle]

2. The reason AMS spawn cooldown is less than a base's is because it supports teamwork. It makes the fight continue to flow at a faster rate. How fun do you think it would be if you just killed a mass amount of people, they you have to wait 2 minutes to spawn, and then walk ALL THE WAY BACK.
How does this support teamwork?
The difference between the two is around 10 second...
Why would it be so awful for attackers to have 20 second respawn times on their AMSunderers at an enemy base when there that extra 10 second will be wasted getting to an objective?

[RSphil]

as sundys are fairly easy to destroy then a quick respawn time makes sense to me. LA's flying over and c4'ing your sundy and blowing it kingdom come will be made too easy if the timer was increased.
again will most ideas/ complaints they are solved with team play which this game is all about.

[Soothsayer]

I agree that facility or hard spawns should have a shorter spawn timer than an AMS.

I would go a little farther in that mechanic and say that a facility's spawn time should be directly related to how far along a cap (or lack of cap) is. So towards the end of a capture, it should take longer to respawn at that base. Not a lot, just enough to make it a worthwhile gameplay mechanic that keeps defenders trying to recapture objectives.

[Figment]

Indeed, it's especially annoying when you DON'T want to spawn at the Sunderer but it's at the top of the list because it refreshes faster.

As for AMS Jammers, Figment made a pretty good argument for bringing back the Sphere of Influence mechanic from the Original Planetside.

In addition to providing Radar inside of a Base, this separate console would also prevent Spawn Beacons or an AMS from being deployed within a certain radius of the facility.

Actually I only stated it would block the spawn beacons. I also notes it would make it more obvious to who you would use /re, since you could see who is in range.

The ams thing is something Malorn wants to see implemented in a radius around a base (and I think Kerrec made a suggestion for anti-ams functionality?).

I don't think ams interference is needed, certainly not with the amount of AV options. Ams proximity placement wouldn't be an issue if the CCs were placed appropriately and be easier to approached by defenders without external interference from vehicles.

It would be far more effective to reduce the amount of people that can acquire certain unit types on their characters. ie. I would have much more faith in a properly limited cert point distribution system on top of a cert research level.

[Climhazzard]

2. The reason AMS spawn cooldown is less than a base's is because it supports teamwork. It makes the fight continue to flow at a faster rate. How fun do you think it would be if you just killed a mass amount of people, they you have to wait 2 minutes to spawn, and then walk ALL THE WAY BACK.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing for 2 minute respawn times.

The major benefit of the S-AMS is that it's a mobile spawn point. You can place it almost anywhere you need it, including closer to an objective than the defender's own spawn point.

As it is now—and ignoring arguments about base design—defenders are at a disadvantage by default, because the attackers can always respawn faster than the defenders. Defenders shouldn't need to deploy an AMS just to remain competitive in the respawn rate department.

Basically, it's my opinion that AMSes should only be used to cut down on travel time (through positioning), not respawn time.

[Hamma]

I honestly feel like spawning is in a good place right now. I think increasing spawn timers anywhere will just serve to increase frustration levels especially among solo players.

[CodeVertigo]

I'm not actually sure why the spawn timer differences between the bases and the facilities are the way they are now. They were like that when I first got into beta as well. I assume there was some balance reason for it at some point, but bugger me if I can think what it is.

To be honest, I don't really understand why it takes longer to spawn at a facility than a Sunderer. It seems to stack the spawning system far in favour of the attackers, especially given the now improved, but largely unaddressed indefensibility of most bases. As an attacker, you have spawn points that work twice as fast, but mobile, with two defence turrets of your choosing - and if the base is large enough, you can have a few of them attack the same base at once.

That combined with the fact that most defenders nowadays tend to circumvent that spawn time by just sticking a Sunderer in the base makes me wonder why they don't simply make the spawn times equal and move the spawns to the centre of the bases anyway.

[GraniteRok]

The only thing I see that needs looked at is the reduction in Sundy AMS radius. 200m is too large of a radius. But I agree, spawn timers at bases should be shorter.

[Ghoest9]

If it's not obvious why it doesn't make sense then there's not much point in having a discussion about it.


You have failed at both the internet and communication in general.

[Corvo]

I think spawning mechanics is in good shape overall now and they better focus on things that need fixing ASAP.

However, if they ever get down to redesigning AMS spawning, they should make a dedicated AMS vehicle. These should be fragile and have close to none combat capabilities. Sunderers should get "Terminals" in their utility slots and focus on IFV/APC roles. This has been discussed here on PSU not long ago, someone even had a concept art pic in there (looked like a maco from mass effect with spawn tubes/med bay)

[BlaxicanX]

I don't see a point to changing Sundy respawn times until attacking infantry overwhelming the defense actually becomes a problem.

A point that I've emphasized in Roathang's sunderer threads, is that "there's too many of 'em!" is rarely ever an actual problem in base defense. In the current PS2 system, it's vehicles that win bases. The infantry just cap.