News: Twitter Chat and Nanite Systems Galaxy

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by LordReaver

Honestly, it's so absurd, that it's shocking anybody thought that to be the case.

I think everybody always automatically assumes the worst of any situation when something new is announced. well not everybody...but most.

[Figment]

I wouldn't say first expected, rather than first feared. To me at least it was more of a "these are all the options (ground/inflight spawning), that seems to be the least attractive option and <arguments> is why". >.>

As long as you don't know for sure, you can only consider scenarios and try to find the implications of one.



I'm mostly interested that there's going to be a gun on top after all. Makes me wonder what functionality the bottom turret structures will have. The gun layout is indeed going to be symmetrical: tail, wings and top. Which means you can only fire three guns at a target at most.

Another thing is that they said that SOME guns would be possible to adapt for AA purposes. That is going to have a very significant impact I'd say on the survivability, both flying and on the ground. First bet is at least the topside gun can be AA. Wonder how suitable for engaging ground targets (like the Gal Gunship) the other alternate weapons will be.

[Shamrock]

I welcome the concept, though I will still miss my AMS.

Pros:

Less lead time getting to the deployment site means less chance of being picked off by random patrolling aircav/armour. It also means your up and ready quicker giving the defenders less time to base prep. Point defence may keep light attacks from lone reavers /lightnings off your back while you set up initially.

Cons:
Good spots to land behind ridges where you will actually fit will be more challenging. We haven't mentioned trees, concealing an AMS in forest areas (eg Hossin swamps) was straightforward, but flying a Galaxy into a tree line would be problematical.
Having a cloak and good placement combined with a router made for an excellent back up when back hacking with a small squad or opening up a new continent. With a deployed galaxy, first responders in aircav are going to see it almost immediately.

[Shogun]

i hope we will be able to persuate the devs to add a cloak bubble sidegrade for the galaxy. maybe sacrifice all weapons for it or even the equipment terminal, so for a cloaked forward base we would need a cloaker gal and a sunderer as equipment terminal plus additional defence if it´s discovered.

so it would not be overpowered. but i guess the cloak bubbles are out not because they are op, but they are hard to implement cheater-safe. there were always some issues and bugs with the cbubbles in ps1.

so maybe giving the galaxy a similar cloaking mechanism as the cloaker class would help? it would only cloak the galaxy and not the spawning masses, but at least there would not be that big tower of an aircraft visible from miles away.

and if only the gal is cloaked, give it a capacitor for 10-20 seconds to be able to cloak airborne. but not longer. so it could only be used to cloak during the landing sequence so there is a chance to land unseen if timed right. or at least give it a semicloak for this, not really complete cloak but a good decrease of visibility, combined with radar stealth.

[Knocky]

I will not miss driving the AMS.

I will not miss the cloak shield flickering for every AirCav that comes within render range.

I look forward to having a spawn point that can defend itself....assuming we can get gunners to sit in it.

I doubt though, that parking a Sundy next to a Gal will repair a DEPLOYED Gal.

[Tikuto]

Cloaking? Nah.

Camoflage ftw.

[Hyncharas]

I do like the rather clean, almost NASA-inspired look of the new Galaxy. Making it a forward base for the air is also a nice touch.

[EASyEightyEight]

Honestly, the number of times I've seen reavers hammer an AMS is so low because of the number of infantry that surround the damn thing. Now I know everyone and their mom can't wield a rocket launcher this time around, but even in PS1, standard bullets did a number on Max units and lighter aircraft (including the Reaver) most people just locked it into their minds they had to use heavy ordinance against non-infantry or it was a waste of ammo.

Pro-tip, 3 magazines of standard ammo from a cycler will tear down a reaver, 2 for a MAX. If there are lower TTK's in PS2, the smalls arms haven't been rendered nigh useless against non-infantry, and maybe there are weak points on aircraft/MAXes, a few riflemen could probably bring down enemy aircraft and MAX armors with some focus fire.

Though I know most people are too stupid to even bother. They'd rather run screaming thinking it's some immortal god until they find their striker.

[Mastachief]

I need my AA gauss merit, People stand there and stare if they don't have AV. 5 gauss users rape aircraft but so few realise that.

[Tybs]

Why is everybody thinking you can deploy it like the AMS?

Lets assume:
- It takes 10 minutes to deploy the base, for that time you have to defend it
- You can not bind at a base
- Alle features that can be added to the gallaxy take time and ground-resourses (cloak, AA GUN, AV GUN, Bind point, Shield)

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Tybs

Why is everybody thinking you can deploy it like the AMS?

Because that is what has been said in the Twitter chat and because they want everything to be quick quick quick fast paced action.

[Tybs]

Originally Posted by Figment

Because that is what has been said in the Twitter chat and because they want everything to be quick quick quick fast paced action.

O.. that makes it less tactical..

[polywomple]

where can I view the twitter chat?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by polywomple

where can I view the twitter chat?

Here, scroll towards the bottom to check out the Q&A. They did a good job of organizing the questions and answers together.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/p...tracker-97.htm

[EASyEightyEight]

Playing tactical has nothing to do with speed, just with playing smart. So get ready to think faster and better than the bad guys.