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.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is an excellent idea. +1.

[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.

[raw]

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

[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.

[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.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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. :/

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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).

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by 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.

There you go.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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.