Sunderer lifespan/role - Page 2

SKYeXile · 2012-01-12, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by SuperMorto

what about spawn tubes, and points that have been captured, the world is more dense now with more possible command points, so does this not mean there will be many more spawn points?

good point, perhaps.

Ailos · 2012-01-12, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by SuperMorto

what about spawn tubes, and points that have been captured, the world is more dense now with more possible command points, so does this not mean there will be many more spawn points?

I'm not sure you would be able to spawn at every bunker, but then again, you never know. If you can, then having a mobile ground-based spawn would be somewhat redundant.

DviddLeff · 2012-01-12, 04:21 PM

I dunno; being able to set up a ground based spawn point in an unexpected position is always going to be a good option.

If squad leaders can set up their own rally points for spawning it may not be so much of an issue...

acosmo · 2012-01-12, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

The [what] is really weak. the AMS served a vital roll of strengthening front lines. being an FvFvF game, the AMS provided a mobile spawn point that enforced this front line. im not sure [that] youraverage gal pilot will be able to do that since they would be dropping troops alover the place. (Dropping random people into water anyone?) Perhaps is a design thing related to vertical gameplay?

Also if spawning is all based around squad leaders, again we're not catering the game towards the common gamer, the casual. Look at what happened to BF3 when they changed it so you default load into a match not in a squad...nobody joined squads.

They're basicly making this so that you have to be in a squad: with somebody who's specced/spec'd heavily into squad leadership.

Your average player will find this frustrating. they will die on the front lines and go back to a base and grab a vehicle or they will simply quit if they dont like driving a vehicle. Also,
the AMS creates dynamic battles depending on their placement. battles are aways unique with AMS's in planetside depending on where they're placed and players decided to attack from there. if bases and towers are really the only ground bases mobile spawn point, you will get a funneling thing happening like what happned in WAR, where players always fight over the same terrain. Yea the gal may be okay, but im never going to spawn in one. there are too many retards who cant FLY in PS1 let alone in PS2 with a proper physics engine. knowing my luck ill spawn in everytime and then die instantly.

SUNDY FOR MOBILE SPAWN POINT!

sorry man. i know this isn't english class but sometimes errors make language much harder to read. i made some minor improvements but it's still really shaky(btw i have reserverations against capital letters, don't ask)

SKYeXile · 2012-01-12, 04:31 PM

To me i just really like the idea of a sundy been a mobile base.

Its got weapons so once its deplyoed it could still be defended. perhaps not cloak this time since its got defenses, and people spawn with proper gear i presume?

then its acts as a mobile ammo/resupply and spawn point and possibly vehciles and aircraft..or atleast give it the option to have different modules, or upto 2 or something.

You could make a base out in the open like you do in planetside with an ams and loadstar. have einginners defend it with deployables, maybe deployable walls? i really think a ground based mobile spawn point adds to the over sandbox nature of what planetside 2 could be.

SKYeXile · 2012-01-12, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by acosmo

sorry man. i know this isn't english class but sometimes errors make language much harder to read. i made some minor improvements but it's still really shaky(btw i have reserverations against capital letters, don't ask)

If i cared, i would install spell checking.

acosmo · 2012-01-12, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

If i cared, i would install spell checking.

please just try to write proper for the rest of us?

SKYeXile · 2012-01-12, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by acosmo

please just try to write proper for the rest of us?

I'll install spell checker just for you...some of my other posts probably need touching up though, if you don't mind?

sylphaen · 2012-01-12, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by SuperMorto

what about spawn tubes, and points that have been captured, the world is more dense now with more possible command points, so does this not mean there will be many more spawn points?

I'm thinking along the lines of Morto. Maybe there will be a lot of tower-like spawn facilities evenly spread-out over the place and with some kind of lattice system that will keep a front line active.

Like fighting in a canyon, for instance, you would progress by taking facility after facility and eventually get closer to the next base that way. The big-base being the grand finale.

Those mini-spawn facilities could be of many different sorts and have parallel lattice links thus avoiding the ToD syndrom.

Of course, that's 100% assumptions and 1% outdated info.

Figment · 2012-01-12, 06:30 PM

I'm under the impression they are going to "steal" some Battlefield spawning mechanics for this. Something which those games been doing for a long time is spawn points near capture points in the field (and usualy resulted in spawncamping annoyances as they were out in the open), so I would assume there'll be more indoor spawn points. Perhaps even multiple in one base?

However, I don't like the idea of the Sunderer as an AMS. Simply because an AMS was specifically designed (and redesigned) for battlefield spawning and (re-)equiping. A Sunderer needs most of its exterior for entry points and in this game for viewports for infantry to fire from.

Not sure if any of you remember the old AMS design, with its two spawntubes and one equip term? You know, from when the offline tutorial still existed. That was redesigned to have two equip terms and one spawntube, because the single equip term was not enough for the frequency of use with so many troops spawning at it. Annoyingly, this may be one rationale for why they let people spawn in their choice gear. PJs were done for good reason: to make spawn areas not impossible to take out as he who spawns can get there more often than he who spawns far away and has to make its way there. The firepower of pjs adds up over multiple spawns as they are closer to the fight (until camped).

The infantry firing from it I think is well intended, but going to work out as a rather poor idea: it is very ineffective and inefficient. Unless you'd use it stationary as a mobile bunker, which... would make you a sitting duck. Why not mobile firing? Because you'd just get motion sick, just like you would in the ball joint gun on the current Sunderer, which you could hardly get a shot on target with as it was low and usualy not aimed at the enemy. (Who would show their huge side as a target to the enemy?). We'll see if proven wrong in beta.

But yes, the Galaxy will not suffice for spawning methods and squad spawning is not sufficient by miles, not to mention annoying. For both side, even if it happens by drop pod. Imagine if you try to do a covert assault and the first thing that people see is Hart drop pods.

Plus, I presume this would also be done on command from the squad leader only? Because if not: "lalalalala I'm an infil in the field nobody sees me lalalalala OMG Y YOU PENIX NOOBS SPAWN ON ME!?". Which means you really need people to have other spawn options. But if a solid spawn point is defended, how are you going to get reinforcements behind enemy lines? Clearly a Galaxy won't ever do: too large, too obvious and too easy a target.

And speaking of AMSes, what about Routers?

BorisBlade · 2012-01-12, 07:02 PM

AMS sounds like a very good idea.

Just used as transport its very very very limited and frankly a waste of a vehicle. Every ground vehicle, including transports, must be also have roles as attack vehicles. They must be as good options as getting a tank on average. Yes they cant do the things a tank could do, but should bring other things they can do that a tank cant. In PS1, unless you are rushing a tower or tryin to break thru base shields in a highly organized assault (which almost never happens) then you should never get into a sundy. A tank is a better option.

Much like the buggie situation in ps1, a sundy has the same probs, a tank is always better. So my biggest hope is they learn from the mistake and give it a solid role that promotes it as not only transport, but as a very solid attack vehicle if equipped right (that works just as well, yet in a different way, compared to a tank), or even an AMS. The customization really allows them to just design basic platforms and let the customizing turn the vehicles into many different roles.

Hmr85 · 2012-01-12, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

To me i just really like the idea of a sundy been a mobile base.

Its got weapons so once its deplyoed it could still be defended. perhaps not cloak this time since its got defenses, and people spawn with proper gear i presume?

then its acts as a mobile ammo/resupply and spawn point and possibly vehciles and aircraft..or atleast give it the option to have different modules, or upto 2 or something.

You could make a base out in the open like you do in planetside with an ams and loadstar. have einginners defend it with deployables, maybe deployable walls? i really think a ground based mobile spawn point adds to the over sandbox nature of what planetside 2 could be.

Great Idea and Yes Please!!! I couldn't agree with this more. The Idea of random spawn points to me in a captured area just sounds meh. Please keep the AMS in some form of a ground vehicle not just the Galaxy.

I'm taking up the call with SkyeXile,
SUNDY for Mobile Spawn point!!!

sylphaen · 2012-01-12, 08:34 PM

I mentionned it in a very old post but I am against the sunderer, a transport vehicle, also being a spawn vehicle.

Why ?

Because to balance it, they would have to nerf its armor, speed, firepower or utility.

Sundy/Delis in PS1 were terrible transport vehicles because of that issue (they were putting too much firepower or armor at the expense of speed on those vehicles - slow transport vehicles do not cut it).

If they truly have transport vehicles in PS2, they should perform at the aspects making them good transport vehicles.

If Sundy is transformed into an AMS, it could not be a good transport vehicle as well for balance reasons.

acosmo · 2012-01-12, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I mentionned it in a very old post but I am against the sunderer, a transport vehicle, also being a spawn vehicle.

Why ?

Because to balance it, they would have to nerf its armor, speed, firepower or utility.

Sundy/Delis in PS1 were terrible transport vehicles because of that issue (they were putting too much firepower or armor at the expense of speed on those vehicles - slow transport vehicles do not cut it).

If they truly have transport vehicles in PS2, they should perform at the aspects making them good transport vehicles.

If Sundy is transformed into an AMS, it could not be a good transport vehicle as well for balance reasons.

so you're saying that by denying the sundy ams features, they are making the sundy into a proper transport?

sylphaen · 2012-01-12, 09:02 PM

The only thing I am saying is that in the end, we should have a proper spawn vehicle or a proper transport vehicle.

Not a bastardized version of things which doesn't excel at a specific purpose.

Now if their plan is to let us do the balance through customization and "create" an AMS or "create" a real transport vehicle through the Sunderer frame (like we will create AA from the tank frame), it's ok too.

2 different vehicles with the same model is a bit bland though.

Refer to the concept of APCs and IFVs if you want to understand better my idea of a transport vehicle.