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.

[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.

[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.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Grow up

Originally Posted by Skitrel

My first ignore.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

insult someone because you disagree with them is the height of internet childishness

Perhaps this comes up, because its a point of concern for people. Trying to shut down discussion with "Waite till beta" is not helping. Its also a highly trusting position, boarding on naive. The forums are here for people to share and discuss opinions and ideas about a game they love.


On-topic

I personally likes the role an AMS brought, and how effective it was at changing the tide. I have zero faith a Galaxy will survive at all in its deployed state, fixed guns can not trump stealth, or a 6 wing Air cav.

I just don't see it.

[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.

[KrazeyVIII]

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

True forum hero right here boys.

Facts:

- The AMS is gone.
- The Galaxy will now serve multiple purposes - One of them being a mobile spawn.
- The Galaxy will have 4 guns.
- Gunners will choose to be in the galaxy to defend it, to the death if they want.
- No cloak (for now).
- Gunners in the Galaxy will have to get out (good observation).
- A Galaxy is a bigger target then an AMS (another good one).

Originally Posted by Figment

You don't have to wait for BETA to understand that

Wiser words were never spoken.


Assumptions:

- The Galaxy will have a huge explosion radius.
- The Galaxy will have shield upgrades.
- The shield upgrades will come at a cost of losing the main guns.
- The gunners on the right can shoot through the vehicle to the left (Oh, sorry that was another one of those personal attacks by you).
- It will have more armor then the Galaxy in PS1 (Very GOOD assumption).
- If the Galaxy is an unkillable war machine it can be parked in a courtyard or outside a tower to lock down an area (the one true point you've actually made)

So outside of all your bullshit there is one thing that may need to get tweaked a lot in beta, and that's abusing the tankyness of the Galaxy (and Sunderer) by parking them in areas to shut down a certain part of a zone or base. If this IS possible then it will probably need fixing - i.e. wait for BETA.

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

If you have a squad of 5 people and you devote 4 people to a Galaxy then your squad leader should not be in a leadership role. Judging by your personality I can only assume you think you are a Chief and not an Indian. So that command mistake can be brought back to you. So when your 5 man spec-ops squad fails because you've dedicated more of your squad to defending your spawn point (which should of been hidden well in the first place) then to defending the objective you were trying to take, don't be surprised when you post it on the forums to only be mocked by everyone there. Even without being in BETA your example proves 1 of 2 things. Either you're grasping for straws trying to find a way to make Skitrel look like an idiot (sadly that attempt is having the opposite effect), or you truly have no knowledge of the game or how to lead a squad and think you are actually correct in your statements. I really hope the former is the case because the latter is too pathetic to comprehend.

And now:

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

I've read every post in this thread. Neither you, nor anyone else, mentions this once before that post. Someone else hints at shields but no one mentions airborne and deployed states. You have a massively inflated ego that can only be matched by your stupidity.

Enjoy being a non-factor.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by KrazeyVIII

- The Galaxy will have a huge explosion radius.

Actually, the assumption is the Galaxy will have a bigger explosion radius than the AMS, based on the Galaxy being bigger than the AMS (at least twice). So if it explodes, it is by default... a bigger explosion.

So outside of all your bullshit there is one thing that may need to get tweaked a lot in beta, and that's abusing the tankyness of the Galaxy (and Sunderer) by parking them in areas to shut down a certain part of a zone or base. If this IS possible then it will probably need fixing - i.e. wait for BETA.

I'm interested in who you are adressing, since you say all my arguments are good, Skitrel's are bad and seem to post them under the assumption they're made by the same person. They're not.

Also interesting in how you state gunnerS (multiple, when we know there's only one) on the right not being able to fire to the left - which is a fact - is a personal attack. It is a clarification to why you cannot pretend the four guns are all useful at the same time: dead zones.

If you have a squad of 5 people and you devote 4 people to a Galaxy then your squad leader should not be in a leadership role. Judging by your personality I can only assume you think you are a Chief and not an Indian. So that command mistake can be brought back to you. So when your 5 man spec-ops squad fails because you've dedicated more of your squad to defending your spawn point (which should of been hidden well in the first place) then to defending the objective you were trying to take, don't be surprised when you post it on the forums to only be mocked by everyone there. Even without being in BETA your example proves 1 of 2 things. Either you're grasping for straws trying to find a way to make Skitrel look like an idiot (sadly that attempt is having the opposite effect), or you truly have no knowledge of the game or how to lead a squad and think you are actually correct in your statements. I really hope the former is the case because the latter is too pathetic to comprehend.

...SIGH. I was illustrating why the Galaxy would NOT be adequately defended, as Skitrel claimed would always be the case. How? By showing that you would NEVER devote people to hold the Galaxy, because it'd be utterly retarded to do so and you can't afford to keep people stationed there.

Thank you for proving my point.

Oh and I also like how you state it would have to be hidden well. That's also something I've been saying for months... But people like Skitrel think is irrelevant for a spawnpoint, because you have four guns to defend it.

I've read every post in this thread. Neither you, nor anyone else, mentions this once before that post. Someone else hints at shields but no one mentions airborne and deployed states. You have a massively inflated ego that can only be matched by your stupidity.

Enjoy being a non-factor.

Actually Skitrel said there will most likely be shields in his first post.

This shield concept upon deploying was mentioned in the first AMS/Gal thread about 3 months ago by me and taken as a "probable" assumption by Skitrel on which he bases it to be a good design. In fact it was because I stated the amount of hitpoints when flying would otherwise be preposterously huge in comparison to the amount of hitpoints needed to be a field base.

Thanks for trying, sadly you didn't quite have the full picture. So basically, you agreed with everything I said, disagreed with everything Skitrel proposed and somehow call me out on it? >.> Ehm. Yeah good luck with that.


EDIT: Found it for you, note the time stamp: 01-28-2012, 01:21 AM. As far as I'm aware, I was one of the first, if not the first to bring that up. However, this has never been mentioned in any dev post or commentary. So Skitrel insinuating there'd probably be one is a bad assumption.

Originally Posted by Figment

@Warborn: It's not the landed vehicle that worries me, it is the flying one. I'd put a recharging vehicle shield (like field turret, starts at zero charge) on a deployed (not landed!) Gal. Then in flight it is not invulnerably strong, especially when used in numbers, while providing a more sustainable field base.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...eployed&page=2

[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

[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