No AMS's in ps2 ????????

[Roradan]

Ok so i enjoyed ams very much. It was a game just to get past all the enemy armor just to set up your ams near a base and helped advance your front line's again i don't know all the roles and new spawn point's in ps2 so ill have to wait for beta. but ams's allowed for attack's from a unknow location that could sweep a tower. Just would like to see how people feel on this matter? were they as useful as i thought or do i just have a big imagination?

[Mightymouser]

This thread has been made at least a dozen times. Please use the search feature.

[Knocky]

Galaxy will be the AMS now.

Please read the sticky at the top.

AKA....the First Thread

[Roradan]

i hope they give the galaxy a cloak upgrade because it will just be a big siting duck if not

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Roradan

i hope they give the galaxy a cloak upgrade because it will just be a big siting duck if not

It has 4 guns and will probably have a shield upgrade for when it's deployed. It will be far from the weak death trap of PS1. It's likely that it's going to be just as tough as the new Sunderer, which reportedly has 4x the armour of tanks.

Picture that alongside the fact that you're going to be using 5 of them in a 60 man mission dropping 50 guys and having 2 pilots/gunners per gal. That's a tonne of fire power to protect the spawn.

[Roradan]

that's a relief to hear the day's of having to bail before the base due to mass air support are over i think i just miss the fact of finding a enemy ams and gank'ing the shit out of the spawne's I'am just stoked about beta can't wait to play

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

It has 4 guns and will probably have a shield upgrade for when it's deployed. It will be far from the weak death trap of PS1. It's likely that it's going to be just as tough as the new Sunderer, which reportedly has 4x the armour of tanks.

Picture that alongside the fact that you're going to be using 5 of them in a 60 man mission dropping 50 guys and having 2 pilots/gunners per gal. That's a tonne of fire power to protect the spawn.

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

And false ones too.


So far:

• 4 guns is irrelevant if you can't train them all on targets, especially one big target, by the assymetric design and positions of the gun upon deployed and deadzones of each gun
• it will be more of a death trap because when it explodes, there will be gunners inside, the AMS of old was NOT a deathtrap. It could explode, it could be OSed, sure. So can a Galaxy. A TRAP would mean you can't get away from it. You can get away as easily from an AMS as from a Galaxy - difference is if you spawn next to a Galaxy you are instant sniper food as there is no cloak shield obscuring you from sight as you get your bearings.
• it will need far more armour than a Sunderer, which will make it potentially imba in low pop situations for camping etc.
• Picture that when you're going in with a squad of 5 people four of which need to guard the Galaxy while the other guy holds the objective.
• There have not been any hints about a shield or other survivability upgrade being present upon deploying

Stop thinking in just your own narrowminded and narrowly and overtly optimisticallly defined combat situations.

Overtly biased fanboy is overtly biased fanboy.

[Kran De Loy]

Chill, no need to be hostile.

They haven't announced they'd put in any kind of defensive stuff to a deployed Gal, but they haven't announced that they wont either.

No AMS means no AMS. So they merged it with the Gal. Until they say more on it doesn't mean that the Gal wont be as effective if not way more effective than the AMS was.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Figment

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

And false ones too.


So far:

• 4 guns is irrelevant if you can't train them all on targets, especially one big target, by the assymetric design and positions of the gun upon deployed and deadzones of each gun
• it will be more of a death trap because when it explodes, there will be gunners inside, the AMS of old was NOT a deathtrap. It could explode, it could be OSed, sure. So can a Galaxy. A TRAP would mean you can't get away from it. You can get away as easily from an AMS as from a Galaxy - difference is if you spawn next to a Galaxy you are instant sniper food as there is no cloak shield obscuring you from sight as you get your bearings.
• it will need far more armour than a Sunderer, which will make it potentially imba in low pop situations for camping etc.
• Picture that when you're going in with a squad of 5 people four of which need to guard the Galaxy while the other guy holds the objective.
• There have not been any hints about a shield or other survivability upgrade being present upon deploying

Stop thinking in just your own narrowminded and narrowly and overtly optimisticallly defined combat situations.

You can not shoot someone's argument down with "assumptions" while making nothing but assumptions yourself.

Originally Posted by Figment

Overtly biased fanboy is overtly biased fanboy.

Grow up, if you can't debate without making it personal don't debate at all. Ad hom. Have civil, polite discussions, it is completely unnecessary to make personal remarks. Getting angry and feeling the need to insult someone because you disagree with them is the height of internet childishness and does nothing for the conversation, debate or threads it occurs in.

[Coreldan]

I agree, I dont think theres a need to be that hostile over a matter like this

That said, they have mentioned they want that the mobile spawn, as in galaxy, is actively defended. We also know that automated turrets are gone and are replaced by engi deployable manned turrets. So that's probably one of the ideas too, to have people actively defend the Gal.

I have a bit mixed feelings about that, as a Gal defense duty doesnt sound overly fun, but we'll see

[PredatorFour]

Well with no AMS we are going to NEED to swap them 4 guns for a cloak shield(hopefully an option). Those that havnt played PS wont understand but being an AMS driver personally, if your seen near an intense firefight for a base, your soon dead. If you land a massive gal near a busy interfarm to get a closer spawn = your even dead-er

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

Well with no AMS we are going to NEED to swap them 4 guns for a cloak shield(hopefully an option). Those that havnt played PS wont understand but being an AMS driver personally, if your seen near an intense firefight for a base, your soon dead. If you land a massive gal near a busy interfarm to get a closer spawn = your even dead-er

Wait til beta. None of us have any real idea how it's going to play out. Invisible spawn points, in my opinion, in modern gaming today, would be horrible.

/comma splicing because that's how I roll

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

You can not shoot someone's argument down with "assumptions" while making nothing but assumptions yourself.

What assumptions?

We know the locations of the four guns. We know what the Gal looks like. You can easily see a gun on the LEFT WING cannot fire at the RIGHT SIDE. Except you, who will ponder this in beta.

Gunners inside have to get out first (unlike people in an AMS, at most one) and if they do they will be right next to an exploding Gal, if they have time to get out in the first place. A Galaxy is a bigger target and will thus have a bigger explosion radius than a small AMS. If anything is a deathtrap, surely the Galaxy, being visible also, is a bigger one. Literally. You don't have to wait for beta to understand that, it requires something you don't apply though: common sense.

Something that needs to be sustained for many, MANY minutes while its location is fixed, known and quite substantially larger than a Sunderer simply needs more armour than a fast moving single use stormram vehicle like the Sunderer will be. That doesn't mean that's going to be the only way you could use this amount of hitpoints though. In fact, your claim to a shield was an assumption I introduced due to the airborne/deployed state difference. I like how you took my assumption then and made it for fact.

You only consider the situation where a huge outfit uses these and has the spare manpower to defend them. I point out that's not always going to be the case and that there will be small outfits who are screwed by this spawnpoint design.



You are the one who is making assumptions without running any other scenarios aside from the ones that in your mind work. You don't actually look at the roles and abuse potentials, nor even the known layout of the vehicles.

So yes, you sir, are a biased fanboy who doesn't know squat.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Figment

What assumptions?

We know the locations of the four guns. We know what the Gal looks like. You can easily see a gun on the LEFT WING cannot fire at the RIGHT SIDE. Except you, who will ponder this in beta.

Gunners inside have to get out first (unlike people in an AMS, at most one) and if they do they will be right next to an exploding Gal, if they have time to get out in the first place. A Galaxy is a bigger target and will thus have a bigger explosion radius than a small AMS. If anything is a deathtrap, surely the Galaxy, being visible also, is a bigger one. Literally. You don't have to wait for beta to understand that, it requires something you don't apply though: common sense.

Something that needs to be sustained for many, MANY minutes while its location is fixed, known and quite substantially larger than a Sunderer simply needs more armour than a fast moving single use stormram vehicle like the Sunderer will be. That doesn't mean that's going to be the only way you could use this amount of hitpoints though. In fact, your claim to a shield was an assumption I introduced due to the airborne/deployed state difference. I like how you took my assumption then and made it for fact.

You only consider the situation where a huge outfit uses these and has the spare manpower to defend them. I point out that's not always going to be the case and that there will be small outfits who are screwed by this spawnpoint design.



You are the one who is making assumptions without running any other scenarios aside from the ones that in your mind work. You don't actually look at the roles and abuse potentials, nor even the known layout of the vehicles.

So yes, you sir, are a biased fanboy who doesn't know squat.

My first ignore.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

It has 4 guns and will probably have a shield upgrade for when it's deployed. It will be far from the weak death trap of PS1. It's likely that it's going to be just as tough as the new Sunderer, which reportedly has 4x the armour of tanks.

Picture that alongside the fact that you're going to be using 5 of them in a 60 man mission dropping 50 guys and having 2 pilots/gunners per gal. That's a tonne of fire power to protect the spawn.

Wait till beta before saying that. Wait till beta. Wait till beta. Wait till beta.


Oh wait (till beta), you are the only one who can say things before hand. Right? The rest of us have to wait till beta.

Hypocrite.

And yes, Coreldan, I get hostile towards hypocrites, because they deserve it.

EDIT: YAY on ignore. Without trying to point out where the assumptions are made or flawed, as usual. Oh wait, we have to wait for beta.