Improvement: Sunderer -> F.O.B.

[Baneblade]

With the demise of the venerable AMS and the Galaxy taking its place, the Sunderer has a chance to shine.

I believe it should be forged into a Deployable Forward Operating Base. It would act as an empire spawn, it would have equipment terminals, vehicle repair/rearm stations, airpads, a command tower with a sniper roost on the roof, and defensive weapons.

It would have walls that are destructible and an IFF access Door where the rear of the vehicle is.

A possible upgrade could be a bubble shield that works like the old BFR shield: Stops large weapons while it is up, but not small arms fire. Another potential upgrade is of course the old AMS cloak bubble, which would allow the spawn to be outfit locked (but not if it is the only spawn point).

Granted the FOB would attract a lot of attention, so it should also have the old router ability but with a few alterations:

When the Routing System is online, the FOB will teleport grunts and MAXes 500 meters directly in front of the FOB on the ground. Walls and shields will block this effect however, so it won't let you put troops directly inside a base.

The Defense Weapons should probably be like the Lightning's, with moderate AV and AI ability, with the option of AA upgrades. Perhaps even empire specific upgrades later on.

[Figment]

Tbh, don't put all that sort of thing on a Sunderer, but make something new for it with this specific role.

Doodled something like this for PS1 once:



The idea behind this unit (for PS1) was that it could be obtained if you had Ground Support and Mechanical Engineering (a cert to upgrade vehicles with sandbag fortifications and camouflage). With this vehicle, the idea was you had more sandbox gameplay regarding setting up defensive positions.

Created a number of different simple fortification structures for that purpose:



Which Fortification Engineers could upgrade with guns and Field Turrets.

Hayoo had a similar idea for emplacements and small deployable bases on PS Idealabs, just without a deployment vehicle but set positions which could be alternately filled if I recall correctly:
http://www.planetside-idealab.com/id...acements.shtml

[Baneblade]

My concern is that the Sundy will be useless as a transport compared to a Gal, but even with an FOB feature, I suppose that won't solve the transport issues.

War Machine does still plan to use the Sundy over the Gal, mainly because it doesn't make sense for an armor outfit to fly in its shock troops.

[Figment]

Well the main thing with whether the Sundy will be more useful or not than the Galaxy will be map layout. If the terrain does not accomodate Galaxies (including flying in under cover), then the Sunderer (packed with jetpackers or MAXes?) might just work quite well.

Also depends on the location of objectives, some might be easier to reach on the ground, though more options are available in the air.

Of course, a ground target will need to use terrain cover to approach which gives it a lower profile than a Galaxy (could face less direct response). Biggest thing is to avoid minefields.

Beyond that, I doubt the Galaxy will be widely available, which is why I'm quite certain we'll need at least some sort of mobile spawn vehicle to not be dependent on fixed spawnpoints and the few locations a Gal can land safely without being in a poor position. :/

[Gonefshn]

There was a thread already with a very similar idea to this except for a major difference which I see as critical.

With the Galaxy as a spawn point they should NOT make the sunderer have a spawn point as well. This totally takes away from the Galaxy's role. You don't want roles and abilities to wash over between multiple vehicles. If you want the sunderer to deploy as a forward operating base, have it work alongside a galaxy.

Basically so after deploying a galaxy and creating the spawn point, adding a sunderer to the deployed establishment would increase the functionality of the forward base.

This makes the sunderer a peice of the puzzle not a galaxy alternative.

[Figment]

Or Gonef, the Galaxy's role takes away from the AMS...

A Gal has enough advantages and a spawnpoint somewhat sucks on it.

[Gonefshn]

What's your point, they made the galaxy take on the role of the AMS on purpose. The reason there is no AMS is because they want one vehicle to fill this role. If you made the Sunderer have a spawn point they might as well bring back the AMS.

The point is they are trying to streamline the game and give each vehicle/weapon/class a unique role it fills in the game space. They combined the AMS and the galaxy into one role, giving the new Galaxy a more important unique role in the game space. there is no need to have 2 different vehicles that can spawn troops.

[Baneblade]

As it stands now, what reason is there for the Sundy to exist... other than for us niche outfits?

[Figment]

Streamlining is another word for sticking arbitrary advantages to random vehicles? The whole PS2 galaxy does not make sense to me because of having the subtlety of an elephant. It's a pretty useless spawnpoint IMO. What it does is dumb the game down to primarily fixed, predictable spawnpoints, with the occasional Galaxy when the terrain happens to accomodate it. Meaning battles become more predictable.

How is that good design? A Sunderer with spawn, though IMO having too many options, would at least stand a chance to be placed in a good position with cover.

A galaxy under fire from a fraction of 666 players on just one team won't last long if you can't keep it out of line of sight. Unless of course you want to aim a gluegun at it for the entire battle along with ten other people...

AMS is superior in every conceivable way with regards to gameplay.

A clear objective on the map and in plain sight just won't last more than a minute. Epic battles should last a bit longer IMO...

[Gonefshn]

Most of the things your saying you can't even know without playing the game.

How do you know only some terrain will acommodate it? how do you know there will only be a few predictable spots it can land?

How can you compare a cloaked AMS in a game with hundreds of players to a Large airship, with armor values and defensive weapons you know nothing about in a game with potentially thousands??

All we know is they are trying to streamline the vehicle design to make each vehicle more specific and useful by pulling the roles of old vehicles together to form new all inclusive ones.

It doesn't make sense to me to have more than one spawn point vehicle.

I will admit using my own arguement above how can I predict if the galaxy being a spawn point will be awesome. I can't know that. Maybe in beta it will be a burden, but what I do know is I believe there should only be one vehicle that functions as a mobile spawn point. If they changed it to the sunderer in Beta then fine. But let them hash that out when we actually get time to playtest these systems.

[Figment]

Gonef use your imagination and ask yourself some critical questions for once. Dimensions of the Gal are far bigger and dimensions for the players the same. Terrain cannot hide a Galaxy as well as it can hide an ams. A gal will always suck in comparison no matter what.

A spawnpoint that is found is a dead spawnpoint. Defenses won't matter, it will just attract more enemy firepower so it dies faster.

If it can withstand the direct combined firepower of 100 free class changing units then it is overpowered in any combat situation where you bring a couple or face less.

Don't you ever run use scenario's?

[Xyntech]

You say a Galaxy compared to an AMS, but don't forget that PS2 will have larger continents, larger bases, larger buildings and structures, larger cliff sides and hills, so keeping a Galaxy behind cover may not be as impractical as PS1 would make us think.

Also, it was sometimes a pain in the ass to get an AMS around, while the only pain a Galaxy every really provided was parking the damn thing. If parking spots are more plentiful/parking is easier, it will be a lot easier to deploy several galaxies than it was to deploy a few AMS's.

AA is different, the terrain is different, the bases, are different, it is really too early to say it won't work. It's worth discussing and debating possible problems, so yes, coming up with scenarios are still a good thing, but let's not act like we know for sure. The devs aren't always going to be perfect and they may or may not have gotten this one wrong, but right now they have a lot more reliable data than we do about how good or bad the new system is in relation to the rest of the changes.

It may be that the devs even deliberately intend Galaxies not to be quite as survivable as a close range spawn point. In the end, they may want to push it back a little and force more medium and long range gun battles by making players land their galaxies in safer places, where they won't have 100 players bearing down on them.

As long as AA can potentially keep aircraft off of landed Galaxies, and as long as there aren't instakill orbital strikes going off every couple of seconds, it doesn't sound implausible to me that a Galaxy could survive pretty decently.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

You say a Galaxy compared to an AMS, but don't forget that PS2 will have larger continents, larger bases, larger buildings and structures, larger cliff sides and hills, so keeping a Galaxy behind cover may not be as impractical as PS1 would make us think.

Also, it was sometimes a pain in the ass to get an AMS around, while the only pain a Galaxy every really provided was parking the damn thing. If parking spots are more plentiful/parking is easier, it will be a lot easier to deploy several galaxies than it was to deploy a few AMS's.

AA is different, the terrain is different, the bases, are different, it is really too early to say it won't work. It's worth discussing and debating possible problems, so yes, coming up with scenarios are still a good thing, but let's not act like we know for sure. The devs aren't always going to be perfect and they may or may not have gotten this one wrong, but right now they have a lot more reliable data than we do about how good or bad the new system is in relation to the rest of the changes.

It may be that the devs even deliberately intend Galaxies not to be quite as survivable as a close range spawn point. In the end, they may want to push it back a little and force more medium and long range gun battles by making players land their galaxies in safer places, where they won't have 100 players bearing down on them.

As long as AA can potentially keep aircraft off of landed Galaxies, and as long as there aren't instakill orbital strikes going off every couple of seconds, it doesn't sound implausible to me that a Galaxy could survive pretty decently.

THIS. My point exactly.

I do run through those situations in my head Figment which is exactly why I come to the conclusions I do.

You are correct the Galaxy will be bigger than an AMS by far but we have no idea what sorts of terrain elements we will have to hide behind or if it will even matter. The galaxy could have 5 times the armor of an AMS from PS1 we still don't know these things.

There could be just as many people defending a landed Galaxy as attacking it also. You cant say a detected Gal is a dead Gal without playing the game.
I love the idea of the AMS being replaced by an air unit. I just think its really cool and brings an awesome dynamic to the air game.

Your talking to me like I am straight up refuting what your saying but thats not even true. I will be the first to admit that having the Galaxy as the new AMS could potentially suck. We can't claim we know what sort of dynamic the battlefield will have before we have played the game or seen it played extensively.

Saying a Located Gal is a dead Gal is like saying, a spawn point in Battlefield 3 is a captured spawn point. Just because you see it doesn't mean your empire will have the guns to bring it down. The team who landed the Gal might completely repel you and keep pushing on, moving even more Galaxys closer and closer.

I don't think this is an issue of I'm right your wrong. You are making statements based on things you can't possibly understand, telling me to think through battlefield situations to come to certain conclusions. But we don't know a thing about how this game will play yet.

The only thing we really disagree on is that I am of the opinion an air vehicle being the spawn point is an awesome idea and you don't think so, which is perfectly fine.

I just think we need to wait for Beta to see how these systems will work. And stick to one vehicle (be it the Galaxy, sunderer, or a new AMS) as a spawn point so the role isn't diluted throughout multiple vehicles.

[Artimus]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

My concern is that the Sundy will be useless as a transport compared to a Gal, but even with an FOB feature, I suppose that won't solve the transport issues.

War Machine does still plan to use the Sundy over the Gal, mainly because it doesn't make sense for an armor outfit to fly in its shock troops.

Which is exactly why I want to be apart of the outfit. Plus I don't think the galaxy will be able to land everywhere the sundy will be able to get to which will encourage the use of ground transport.

[Figment]

Fine, let's agree to disagree on the gal and what conclusions can already be drawn. We are taking the topic too far away from sundy forward assault base. That's not fair on Sobekeus.