Nanite Systems Sunderer - PlanetSide Universe

The official site has been updated with information about the Nanite Systems Sunderer.

The Sunderer is a massive 12 man armored truck designed to break through or "sunder" an enemy’s defensive line and deliver troops safely to a strategic location behind enemy lines. Its heavy armor allows the Sunderer to withstand large amounts of focused enemy fire giving it a much longer life expectancy. Its powerful engine and heavy mass also allows it to push almost any other vehicle out of its way, including tanks. Finally, the Sunderer has several support capabilities supplying medical supplies to troops and ammo to troops and vehicles.

Click here to check out the full article.

120 comments

2012-01-17 04:41 PM

Source: PlanetSide 2 Website

Latest Comments

2012-01-19 07:29 PM

Figment

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I speculate that PS2 could suck, therefore I judge that PS2 will suck, and so there's no reason to keep following it. Speculation is fine, but making concrete judgement based on hypothetical situations seem a bit excessive.

>____________>

What kind of argument is that? It's a bit of an exageration compared to what we're talking about (educated guesses + experience > random qualifications), isn't it?

Although theoretically, if the assumption is that the game could suck and the judgement is "That would suck" and upon beta it turns out the assumption is correct... Then the game WOULD suck.

Vancha and you both don't seem to understand that a judgement of a speculation is not a judgement of the game, but a judgement of a specific consideration, within a specific context and under specific circumstances. Why is such a judgement needed? To make recommendations, user scenarios and other such things.

And you know what? Developers and designers, even engineers do this sort of thing before they write code, or built something. Or are you saying they just randomly develop things and only once they're done judge if it was anywhere near correct? Tweaking yes, but value judgements are made after brainstorming to reduce resource waste as much as possible. You want to make decisions as early as possible in the design process, which means judging. That you two apparently claim you can't develop ideas into probable user scenarios (even if they are slightly off) on which you can provide a value judgement, and ignore as well that very logical derivations and extrapolations can easily be made that's your business, but don't go about and tell people what they can't. Especially when you consider that when more information is known a hypothesis can be tested and tweaked as well. Beta is the best form of verification, but far from the only one!

Sorry Chud, but what a load of bull.

2012-01-19 08:31 PM

CuddlyChud

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

My point is that you're creating a framework in your mind, within which you apply these hypotheticals, that aren't grounded in any sort of reality. None of us know anything about the gameplay mechanics of PS2 other than the most superficial parts. Therefore, it seems a bit excessive to begin critiquing items based on our vague and out of context knowledge of those items. It'd be like designing a building without knowing anything about physics. Sure, you could draw something up, but it would probably be non-functional and pointless. You're guesses can't possibly be that educated unless your secretly a Dev.

2012-01-20 03:19 AM

Vancha

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Originally Posted by Figment

Under the speculative conditions of course.

Meaning, assuming A is right, then you can judge a system for assumption A as context.

Again, what are assumptions?

Judging a system based on speculation is likely going to be a bad judgement. You still haven't explained how a valid judgement can be made on a system by speculation.

Originally Posted by Figment

EDIT: Actually. People like me already assumed the Galaxy would be a ground based spawn point (as we already KNEW it would act as spawn, just not how), as we used speculation to decide that airborne it'd be annoying, OP in certain scenarios, yet not very proficient for a normal base fight.

But hey, you missed out on that?

What did I miss out on? I feel no worse off for not having spent time throwing out guesses about the plane in a game. As of now, we are at the exact same position in regards to our knowledge of the Galaxy. Are you any better off for all the premature judgements you made?

Originally Posted by Vancha

"I act as if speculation will at all times be way off the mark as I claim judgements are impossible." Do I act, or do I claim? How does claiming judgements are impossible imply speculation will at all times be way off the mark? Where did I claim judgements are impossible?

Hey, could you answer this? Yet again you spoke for me and yet again you misrepresented me. In a previous post, I nearly claimed that you had personally argued for the inclusion of the AMS in Planetside 2, but I checked that that was correct and it wasn't, so I changed my post to avoid lying. You could at least extend the same courtesy.

Originally Posted by Figment

Vancha and you both don't seem to understand that a judgement of a speculation is not a judgement of the game, but a judgement of a specific consideration, within a specific context and under specific circumstances. Why is such a judgement needed? To make recommendations, user scenarios and other such things.

Clearly that isn't what we're talking about and you know it. Extrapolating hypothetical conclusions based on speculation is fine, but people are going beyond that. Some people were quite clearly bothered by the lack of AMS', for example.

2012-01-20 05:03 AM

Figment

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it.

And yes, the lack of AMS is something I'm concerned with. Why? Because I KNOW how big a Galaxy is and I KNOW how hard it is to get something that big into a subtle, safe position in close proximity to a potential of thousands of hostile players. A Galaxy has no low profile and this is why I think it is unsuited.

It is not that hard to figure out that just the Galaxy is going to be questionable in comparison to a cloakable (once in place), low profile vehicle that can more easily stay out of view during its approach: ground vehicles have one big advantage in that respect and it's something that is often overlooked. I predict the Galaxy to be a pretty poor spawn vehicle.

In fact, I very much doubt its guns are going to be used much and when they are often too late (1. bad firing angles for at least half the weapons (facing wrong direction due to symetrical layout) 2. experience with people suggests they'll want to move off instead of repair and defend: can't move along with fight, while people want to fight constantly - AMSes were also deserted very fast after spawning, same will happen with Galaxy although the fight will be drawn to it more quickly 3. better weapon alternatives where you are not the main target 4. similar reasons to why Field Turrets weren't used much: stationary target == sitting duck and easily to exploit bad firing angles). Very easy to derive points. So basically, you'll get two guns and some hitpoints to compensate for no cloak and an object that has four, five times the volume of a PS1 AMS and thus can't make use of the same amount of positions as it requires much more room to deploy and is far harder to cover by blocking it from view protect.

But hey, how could I possibly come to such a conclusion and thus be very concerned about it till I played.

And with that, a judgement is made that will have to be verified in beta. It is critique you hope the devs took into account. If they honestly think it is enough to place a Galaxy in the wide open by sticking a couple guns on it so it can be defended, then it's going to be easy to prove them wrong in beta. I can derive a lot from the images of the bases and continent sofar. My expectations are that the Light Assault class is going to be very much needed, because you will have to advance through the open field a lot from a long distance (as the Galaxy will not be placed up close to a facility unless you firmly control the area).

I already extrapolate from that - in combination with faster TTKs - is going to make holds very hard, as they are already hard when the enemy has to find your spawnpoint first (which it won't need to now since it's going to be sticking out like a soor thumb). Just how hard I can't tell, sure, but that doesn't mean I can't qualify it at all.

An uncloaked Galaxy can't be flown in for stealth ops. It simply has too high a profile for that sort of thing. It is therefore going to make deployment of Galaxies much harder, as an AMS can be placed in the open and in unexpected locations, whereas a Galaxy will have to land in a protected area and will have to be continuously protected. Which means small ops are also going to be even more troublesome as the amount of potential enemies coming to resec has also been increased simply because of a larger playerbase fighting on the same cont.

Combining such information is simple especially if you have 20 years of gaming experience and a lot of years in design.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure such things out.

But hey Vancha, if you can't judge a system before hand, then we are at least sure of one thing: the devs have not been able to judge the system either.

2012-01-20 05:28 AM

SKYeXile

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Originally Posted by Figment

I already extrapolate from that - in combination with faster TTKs - is going to make holds very hard, as they are already hard when the enemy has to find your spawnpoint first (which it won't need to now since it's going to be sticking out like a soor thumb). Just how hard I can't tell, sure, but that doesn't mean I can't qualify it at all.

Given that one of the hardest thing about a gen hold is always the amount of ammo you have, a gen hold could in theory be easier in PS2, since now there is no need to repair armour. its probable that health regenerates on it own. while i doubt medics will be instant resing people, since im rather sure matts against it they could possibly still res to infinity.

Also with the removal of looting backpacks there needs to be a way to replenish ammo besides going back to a terminal, it would have to be via the typical running over a corpse or with a deployable ammo dispensing facility, hopefully more like TF2 or Nuclear dawn and not BF series.

I think a gen hold would be easier...unless ofcourse you can kill somebody with 1 grenade...given the damage potential of a vamp granaide in a cluster fuck that could be highly possible.

2012-01-20 05:38 AM

ringring

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Lol figgy, you said a lot of the things that are running through my mind.

My only qualification/question is, do I know everything yet? Well, I don't know what I don't know, we'll have to explore all this in beta.

At present I'm still expecting to see a phutzerg of respawnees running from a galaxy far away to the base, whereupon they get immediately farmed and ... rinse/repeat.

I hope there is something unknown to us or at least not clear that would prevent this ^^.

2012-01-20 05:40 AM

Figment

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

I would disagree a bit with that assesment, as that entirely depends on the speed of shield (and health, if applicable) regeneration. If you want a fast shield regen, they said it'd lower the total shield strength. That means that under constant attack, those who can respawn would have a clear advantage as long as they maintain pressure. Attrition would be a definite issue for the holders.

One big difference will also be that not everyone can heal and have very heavy weapons due to the class distinction. That too is going to make it harder to hold, because you can clearly take out the clearly visible medics first to prevent regeneration.

Of course that also depends on vantage points and ease of hitting choke points from cover and the size of these choke points (density and number of enemies coming through). Could be that under conditions of a fast TTK, grenade spam will be extremely effective at choke points. However, if the choke point is not very small (say double door size of current PS), then even with PS1 boomers (which I thought weren't in) it'd be hard to keep the entire choke point in check. Certainly in a low pop situation for the holders, I'd imagine a wide choke point to be to their disadvantage.

I'm not entirely sure if looting backpacks is completely ruled out btw, the trailer did have a TR with a weapon with a NC logo on it (could be placeholder). It's unclear just how you would handle a customized enemy weapon, but I'm assuming that IF looting backpacks for enemy weapons is possible, it defaults to its standard configuration and you still need the appropriate class/certs for it.

2012-01-20 08:42 AM

Vancha

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Originally Posted by Figment

But hey, how could I possibly come to such a conclusion and thus be very concerned about it till I played.

Because, as Chuddly so well put it...

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

you're creating a framework in your mind, within which you apply these hypotheticals, that aren't grounded in any sort of reality.

Your entire post assumes so much about the game, I have a hard time keeping them all in my head to type here. In just the first of the three, I count at least four assumptions that could, each and every one them, be utterly and totally incorrect...and they aren't even the speculation itself, they're the things you're basing the speculation on.

Originally Posted by Figment

Combining such information is simple especially if you have 20 years of gaming experience and a lot of years in design.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure such things out.

The amount of problems with the things you say damages me. At this very moment they are making my brain cry and beg for respite. Please, only you can stop cruelty to brains.

Originally Posted by Figment

But hey Vancha, if you can't judge a system before hand, then we are at least sure of one thing: the devs have not been able to judge the system either.

Oh god. They're in possession of far more information and facts than we are. How could they possibly not be able to make better judgements than us? Yes, there's plenty that they can't make valid judgements on. They're making a game for thousands of players but don't have thousands of players to test with yet, some of their judgements will probably be catastrophically wrong, but for crying out loud...

Edit: I think this has long stopped being productive, it's just irritating now. I'll give you the last word.

2012-01-20 09:48 AM

Figment

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Soooooo, you are saying now that:

1. My assumptions are unreasonable/unfathomable/not based on experience with analogue situations

(which I already find fascinating)

2. Devs have more knowledge prior (PRIOR) to creating a game? Because that is when decisions have to be made using assumptions.

3. That a framework in my or someone elses head is not refined upon new information?

4. That because assumptions COULD be wrong, they probably are. And that even if you judge a situation under THOSE STATED ASSUMPTIONS this is somehow bad. EVEN if you explicitly state it has to be verified?

Interesting...

2012-01-20 10:26 AM

CutterJohn

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Originally Posted by Figment

2. Devs have more knowledge prior (PRIOR) to creating a game? Because that is when decisions have to be made using assumptions.

Devs actively playtest throughout development. They have far, far, far more knowledge than you.

4. That because assumptions COULD be wrong, they probably are. And that even if you judge a situation under THOSE STATED ASSUMPTIONS this is somehow bad. EVEN if you explicitly state it has to be verified?

More that its irrelevant if they are wrong or right, since it is not verifiable until at least the beta. Until then its still just an assumption. It may be well reasoned, and it may be right, but it definitely doesn't matter.

Also, its an assumption based on your own preferences. Developers also have preferences, and they also have a lot of experience, and way more actual data. You can of course second guess them. I do it. But it is very much being an armchair quarterback.

2012-01-20 11:02 AM

Figment

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Mind, I don't know about what you think of yourself, but I can tell you and cuddle are placing people into your own framework and don't give them the credit they deserve. You don't seem to want to get it out of your head that when someone makes an analogy with another game that they are not per se thinking in the context of that old game and that they could very well be on to something. I hardly made any significant assumptions, I used something called "deduction" using sample games to argument the case. Not 'induction', which is what you attribute falsely to some people by suggesting they only think in the framework of that alternate game.

And it also doesn't mean that just because it's "a new game" that people suddenly behave completely differently or that huge targets suddenly cannot be targeted anymore (quite the contrary given the evidence a landed Galaxy has to defend itself now) or that huge targets can suddenly hide behind minor terrain features or don't need space. A huge object is a huge object.

Please, instead of making no arguments whatsoever and dismissing out of hand with an attack on character, point out which of the following assumptions I made in that post based on PS1 and experience are so farfetched that you can't possibly suggest them.

Hell, I'd like to know how you could even disagree with them.

- Symmetrically layed out guns on Galaxy
- Likeliness of assault coming from one particular direction, say half a circle in one direction
- Likeliness of pilot wanting to place it in cover
- Likeliness of Galaxy being relatively big in comparison to an old AMS, thus requiring more space and larger cover
- Likeliness that an object that blots out the sun (or at least a significant piece of the sky) and cannot hide itself, is more likely to be spotted before installation than a small vehicle driving behind hills that can cloak itself upon arrival
- Likeliness of footzerg behaviour to be prevalent amongst players of PS2 based on 80% of people doing just that in PS1. (Did you potty train them since?)
- Likeliness that small ops don't have the manpower to defend a Galaxy as they have more objectives to accomplish and guard, which means they would prefer it to have built in passive defenses, such as camouflage (ie. a cloak field) rather than having to baby sit a spawnpoint as well (which may in fact give away its location if it wasn't obvious enough IF for instance 'Reveal Enemies' makes a return in a command tree).
- Likeliness that people prefer not to be a conspicious target that is likely targeted first
- Likeliness of enemies targeting spawnpoint over the randoms around it
- Likeliness of a stationary target the size of a barn to be overlooked or missed by enemy fire and thus not be prefered over a rather small moving target with an attuned weapon for the situation and more control over firing angles
- A Galaxy having more hitpoints than an AMS required, based on transport role over enemy terrain and being a huge stationary target

I think that's about my assumptions based on experience in that post about the Galaxy. I'm sure you having gotten a headache over it, probably have quite a few things to say about them, so please, feel free to "get the last word" in a normal fashion: by argumenting your case.

2012-01-20 11:04 AM

Figment

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Devs actively playtest throughout development. They have far, far, far more knowledge than you.

What does the word PRIOR mean to you?

Read again. Comprehend why I made that comment in the context of the discussion with Vancha. Please.

Oh how wrong you are.

User Feedback is never irrelevant. By reading these suggested scenarios, they can doublecheck during alpha, as you mentioned before. BUT for that they have to have considered it. We're just making sure they are and also trying to make sure their assumptions about what players want are correct.

The claim they made that people "got bored just driving, thus they get to gun their tank too", for instance, is not correct at all. I've not encountered one person who got bored driving so far. So if that's the reason to combine that, it's the wrong reason. Might in fact be one of those personal preferences you mention below. Brewko, I'm looking at you.

Also, its an assumption based on your own preferences. Developers also have preferences, and they also have a lot of experience, and way more actual data. You can of course second guess them. I do it. But it is very much being an armchair quarterback.

Designers who only think from their own point of view are bad designers.

2012-01-20 02:42 PM

cogz

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Instead of a spawn point it should just have a spawn catapult where the driver can just fling you wherever he wants when you spawn.

2012-01-20 07:30 PM

Talek Krell

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Figment, as far as I've been able to glean from this fascinating thread your point is essentially that gals will not work like an AMS if they work as you assume that they'll work and therefore we need to replace them with the AMS.

If that's the case, then you're welcome to think that but I'd appreciate it if you'd be less patronizing about it because it's rather unfounded, and you're quickly shedding what of my respect you garnered in the driver/gunner debate.

2012-01-20 07:43 PM

Raymac

Re: Nanite Systems Sunderer

Just have to say this about the Sunderer. From the Twitter Q&A the type of armor doesn't limit what seat you can have so unlike PS1 you can have a Bang Bus full of Maxes. Brings a whole new dimension to Max Crash Teams!! Can't wait.