Is the Galaxy a viable spawn? - Page 8

Raka Maru · 2012-09-04, 11:29 PM

Why am I forced to FLY if I want to play a support role?

Tatwi · 2012-09-05, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

Why am I forced to FLY if I want to play a support role?

Because SOE/Blizzard/etc know best, it's "their game", and if you/me/we don't like, we can "Fuck off and go play something else!", because they don't need us.

Raka Maru · 2012-09-05, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

Because SOE/Blizzard/etc know best, it's "their game", and if you/me/we don't like, we can "Fuck off and go play something else!", because they don't need us.

Of course this means STFU

Figment · 2012-09-05, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

As I have said before, it's all about balance. A cloaking mobile spawn point would simply be too powerful. The Galaxy is very good for it's intended uses, not over or under powered. Planetside 2 is a completely different game (that those who have not played cannot grasp) from Planetside 1. The terrain is different. The way bases function is different. The speed of travel is different. You have so many options in Planetside 2. You have the ability to capture a hard spawn at enemy facilities, medics, spawn beacons and instant action (even with a 30 minute timer, you rarely need to use it that often, but it is there). The Galaxy is durable, can be placed in hard to kill locations and can be defended. If it gets killed, so what? Grab another and fly the 30-40 seconds it takes to get back to the target. Just as I have always said with the AMS, just because you placed it there, doesn't mean it deserves to live for hours.

Piggy, I love you really, but please get out of zerg mentality once.

If you answer the question NewSith posed based solely on the thread title, and your answer is yes, then I'll ask you another question:

"Are Migs a viable way to win a Command & Conquer Red Alert mission or random skirmish?"

You may only answer with "yes" or "no".

If your answer is yes, then you clearly don't need ANY other offensive units in C&C. In fact, it might be OP if you'd have access to heavy tanks and would use these en mass? Ehr... Doesn't that actually make it fun for some people? Maybe they don't like playing with Migs? On the other hand, you would not have considered those missions where there's massive AA defense and you have gigantic fog of war and have to deal with just the Spy Plane to scout. Basically, you ignore the diversity of scenarios by repeating the few scenarios where you can play your way. And given your outfit is huge, I'm sorry to say that you have lost all sense of small outfit and sneak perspective.

If your answer is no, then you haven't considered the scenarios where it is possible to simply spam Migs using your construction yard and completely overwhelm enemy AA defenses. Clearly you should play that way because it's possible, even if it's not very efficient? Maybe you should just play the game as intended: with Migs and aerial bombardment only, or is it really that selfish to want to play the way you want to if what you get isn't what you perceive as fun or too limited?

Do you catch my drift? You are in tunnelvision and only think from your own needs to design the proper design perspective. You haven't made any argument why AMSes would be OP, you just stated they are. Please, give me one example where AMS use would be so different from PS1 that it'd become incomparable.

Simply numbers doesn't matter as those can be balanced with ease through restricting availability if they'd prove an issue. In fact, you yourself indicate that it'd take more time to place an AMS because you can "get a new Galaxy within seconds". That would suggest the Galaxy is OP, not the AMS. The trade-off is simply different.

andehh · 2012-09-05, 10:56 AM

I honestly fail to see why a cloaked AMS/Sunderer would be over powered.

You still have to drive them to a point prior to deployment, they are slow, poor at manoeuvring and it isn't rocket science to work out logical places where an enemy would out their.

You can also triangulate where enemies are coming from/follow the bread crumps.

It also adds an extra layer of team player or role for an infiltrator go try and track them down prior to warning the team.

That being said due to the cloak, they can still be parked closer to the action to allow better battles and less time running across the map.

An AMS/sunderer spawn can only improve the game. If only because troops will spend more time in battles and bases, and less time hiking across the map!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Majik · 2012-09-05, 12:59 PM

In PS I was a GAL pilot and an AMS driver for my outfit. In PS2 I can't fly the GAL, when I do keep it in the air long enough to get it near a fight it either gets wasted by the first enemy air that sees it, or I crash it trying to find a level spot to land. Add to that you have to go all the way back to the warp to get one and it is on a forever and a day timer, I hate the gal spawn.

I want my ground based spawn point back.

Tatwi · 2012-09-05, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

Of course this means STFU

Just clarify, I am speaking of the AMS issue specifically, because in a lot of other things SOE does listen these days. It just makes me really upset that so many people in the community have asked for an AMS-like vehicle, yet SOE refuses to even try it in the beta test to see how it plays out. That's what a beta is for and if they really put the community ahead of their own egos, they would at least try it.

AMS, she's not a pink bunny.

EVILPIG · 2012-09-05, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Piggy, I love you really, but please get out of zerg mentality once.

I fail to see how my response is "zerg mentality". I was a dedicated AMS supplier in PS1, as it was the most powerful vehicle in the game and key to victory. My opinion is based on having played PS2 extensively, but please, don't focus too much on my opinion, as I am just one of many.

Sorry, but I do not play C&C games, so I do not understand your comparison.

Originally Posted by Tatwi

Just clarify, I am speaking of the AMS issue specifically, because in a lot of other things SOE does listen these days. It just makes me really upset that so many people in the community have asked for an AMS-like vehicle, yet SOE refuses to even try it in the beta test to see how it plays out. That's what a beta is for and if they really put the community ahead of their own egos, they would at least try it.

AMS, she's not a pink bunny.

Keep in mind that while you want to test what the Beta environment would be like with the AMS, SOE probably wants to extensively see what the Beta environment is like with just the Galaxy. Give it time, they have greatly shown that they look at feedback. Focus on the feedback that they need right now.

Figment · 2012-09-05, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

I fail to see how my response is "zerg mentality". I was a dedicated AMS supplier in PS1, as it was the most powerful vehicle in the game and key to victory. My opinion is based on having played PS2 extensively, but please, don't focus too much on my opinion, as I am just one of many.

You play in a really big outfit, correct?

Can you relate to outfits with 5-12 people online? Can you relate to stealth ops players? Do you play stealth ops constantly? No, you don't. Don't speak for me and my kind of players. You don't and can't know what we need, because you can rely on numbers to protect your gal, to get new ones, to do all those things you talk about based in having large group experience.

But that is all you have. :/

Did you do three men AMS missions in PS1 to setup router/AMS away from the zerg? I doubt it. You keep saying an AMS is not needed based on your experiences while denying our own experiences to mean anything. You after all, were able to do what you wanted. You were, great. But that is like a designer who is four feet tall making a seat he can sit in, then saying "if I can sit in it, everyone else can, even if they are six feet tall or longer". That is simply not good design.

In Ergonomics, one talks in Gaussian curves. In your case you may say that the Gal covers P25 to P90 of situations. But what about P1-P25 and P90-P99? (populace percentiles). You think since a large chunk is covered, the rest can be ignored, since you never get in that situation. You don't get to experience you need the AMS, because you don't get out of the Gal's comfort zone and don't mind. We do get way out of the Gal's comfort zone and it is hurting our fun because people like you block us from getting what we need by trivialisering our input by only focussing on what the Gal CAN, instead of finding out what it can't and which players it cannot support.

Sorry, but I do not play C&C games, so I do not understand your comparison.

Do you play any RTS games? Do you expect that you don't have any alternatives? In the case above, if it is possible to do air strikes and complete the mission, do you think everyone should play that way and only that way if the game is supposed to let you decide how you want to play and how you best your opponent. Meaning you scrap tanks, because you don't need them personally or you don't think they are fun personally? meaning you dictate others to play your way or forget about it?

That is what is happening here, we are stripped from strategic alternatives because someone else who doesn't know anything about us decided we don't think it's fun and we don't need it. Based on that argument we don't get it.

Bittermen · 2012-09-05, 03:03 PM

Yay pseudoscience!

EVILPIG · 2012-09-05, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

You play in a really big outfit, correct?

I am finding less and less validity in your opinion with each presumptuous reply. My PS and PS2 experiences are not limited to my outfit. I play a wide variety of alts across empires and servers. I lone wolf and play in various types of other outfits. I am well versed in spec ops play as well. My opinion about the potential impact of the AMS as a cloaked spawn point goes beyond your needs as a spec ops player. Though articulate, you are beginning to sound narrow minded in demanding that something is added just to suit you. It's also pretty lame for you to claim that you know everything I have done or know about the games. Basically, you're just saying that you know better and that is the final word. I have stated my opinion about the issue and you can state yours. I'm not going to simply say, I know everything about you and your motivations and you are simply wrong! So, I ask that you refrain from doing the same.

I'll summarize.
1. A cloaked spawn point would be too powerful in this environment.
2. There are many options to support spec ops activities, including:
A. Bringing a Galaxy (which is not be cloaked, but is a spawn point).
B. Have support classes. Medics and engies. just because you may be small, does not mean you shouldn't be using them.
C. Take a hard spawn if available at your target.
D. Use Spawn Beacons to back up your spawn options if you get wiped.

I predict that you will go back to your spec ops argument when it sounds more like you mean "covert ops". Is a Galaxy as covert as a cloaked AMS? No. Does that mean that a cloaked AMS should be introduced to the game? I don't believe so. Is the Spawn Beacon very covert? Not really, it can be easily seen. Does that mean that the enemy will always spot it or be able to get to it to destroy it? No, but it certainly helps for recovering once you begin to take casualties.

Feel free to add your opinion. I'd also like to know what kind of special operations you are interested in doing? And please, keep it civil.

I'll also add that again, I love the AMS and if the devs find a balanced way to bring it back, so be it.

Kipper · 2012-09-05, 04:30 PM

I don't think it would need to be cloaked. It has turrets for defence (Sundy AMS)

Less cloaky, more fighty. If you want to bring a spawn closer to the action, bring people to defend it.

Crator · 2012-09-05, 05:53 PM

When people talk against the AMS I see they mostly talk against a cloak ability. So let's try it without a cloak then? Do those who don't want an AMS leave-and-forget cloak like in PS1 would you compromise with a certed cloak ability that can't be turn on indefinitely but uses energy that can deplete but automatically refill over time, like the current special abilities that classes do?

Salad Snake · 2012-09-05, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by TerminatorUK

I think we have a case where the Galaxy is a viable spawn however, like many things in the game at the moment, we need more options & diversity.

I would like the Sunderer to have a spawn option (say in trade for weapons or armour) and possibly a cloak bubble option to be an alternative to the Galaxy.

Sunderer would be great as it doesn't really have much use now, but there'd have to be something to make it an inferior spawn point since it's cheaper...

Originally Posted by Bocheezu

The game they are playing is the TR/VS side of things. Let me sum this up.

NC: The gal is wonderful, I can it fly it anywhere, it never dies.

TR/VS: I have to park it way off in the middle of nowhere so it doesn't get spotted by the omnipresent Reavers, which blow it up in 3-4 rocket salvos. Despite spending 16k Auraxium on Dual Burster, 12.5k on HA AA, and 10k on Walker turrets for the Gal, none of them are good enough to prevent Reavers from blowing it up. See you in another 20 minutes when I get 400 alloy to spawn another.

This, it's tough to make suggestions when the balance is so murky atm. I'd love for them to take a portion of the team and do a balance pass one week.

Figment · 2012-09-05, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

I am finding less and less validity in your opinion with each presumptuous reply. My PS and PS2 experiences are not limited to my outfit. I play a wide variety of alts across empires and servers. I lone wolf and play in various types of other outfits. I am well versed in spec ops play as well. My opinion about the potential impact of the AMS as a cloaked spawn point goes beyond your needs as a spec ops player.

Fair enough. Apologies if it sounded insulting to you, as that was never the intention. You never make an argument based on spec / covert ops though. It's always "me and my buddies bring a Gal and then another and another), which doesn't sound anywhere close to what's possible for a small outfit.

Though articulate, you are beginning to sound narrow minded in demanding that something is added just to suit you. It's also pretty lame for you to claim that you know everything I have done or know about the games. Basically, you're just saying that you know better and that is the final word. I have stated my opinion about the issue and you can state yours. I'm not going to simply say, I know everything about you and your motivations and you are simply wrong! So, I ask that you refrain from doing the same.

It's not narrowminded at all. I go beyond what you can do with a Galaxy. Saying that the Galaxy is sufficient is narrowminded from my pov. Yes, I AM asking for a tool that fits me, but it also fits everyone else. I'm not being selfish. I find it selfish and narrowminded when someone says "hey, see what I can do with it, you therefore can too even if you don't want it".

I'll summarize.
1. A cloaked spawn point would be too powerful in this environment.

You've said that before, but you have never stated why you think that. Just repeating that you think it is OP doesn't make it so.

Considering the terrain is pretty much like that in PlanetSide, only the size of terrain has been scaled up, there's no reason I see why it wouldn't work exactly the same. People would still pop as bread crumbs walking from their AMS. An AMS would have less health than a Galaxy and the whole point of a spawnpoint is longetivity. The Gal does that fighting style, the AMS hiding style. No big deal. An AMS is logistically harder to bring to the site in question due to the terrain, but once there could sustain fights better, which last way too short right now despite of the Galaxy (which utterly sucks for sustaining fights, tbh, especially in the field or creating intermediate fights).

Fights should not last a few minutes as they do now.

This seems absolutely fair to me and if you're going to say it's OP, explain why and which AMS deployment rules you expect there to be. If you base your opinion on lack of deployment rules, I could see you complain about spamming of points, but if that'd actually be an issue, that'd be easy to fix with a basic interference radius between AMSes.

Furthermore, once PS2 actually gets more properly defensible bases (which I still presume it will), then an AMS has a much harder time getting passed the walls. Meaning a Galaxy is far more OP right now because it can ignore them completely, especially if you bring several, there's a very good chance you can just deploy one somewhere in an enemy CY. In contrast, an AMS has no defenses aside from invisibility, meaning if it is spotted trying to get into CY, it'll die much faster than a Galaxy. Again, not OP.

Also, name me one situation in PS1 where AMSes were actually OP, rather than the populace lazy in recalling and regrouping to take them out. I can't recall a single situation where people couldn't have recalled, grabbed a few libs and smashed the AMSes to bits. I can recall many more times where people don't leave their fights however even if they have the chance to.

2. There are many options to support spec ops activities, including:
A. Bringing a Galaxy (which is not be cloaked, but is a spawn point).

That does not support spec ops. A defenseless Galaxy I cannot consider a spawnpoint since it'll be dead before you can use it. If it's placed further away it's not a spawnpoint you can use either. Meaning point A is absolutely false.

Further more, you can't use neither a Galaxy nor a fixed spawnpoint for a group of saboteur infiltrators. If you don't see why, then you don't play our type of game after all. Stealth and leaving it alone is an absolute must. Without it, it's pointless and a waste of time to work from the zerg side of a fight. Might as well quit then.

AMSes are also the only thing you can use to set up an ambush. A Galaxy would not be able to allow you to prepare terrain for an ambush as the enemy would immediately be warned of your presence, plus would remove you almost instantly.

An AMS in the field means you have to get close to search and take it out. This stimulates battle. A Galaxy in the field would be spammed from long distance till it is dead. This does not support field fights that a lot of players like, ends battles abruptly and generally means ping-ponging between bases like we do now in PS2.

A Galaxy as only type of spawn will also mean that there will be no spawnpoints in the entire area left once a base is attempted to be held (when a battle moves inside, quite often any Gal around a base gets blown up by enemy air). That means there are no fall back positions and you are thrown back multiple hexes - if the enemy didn't already take those areas already as you were locked in. Outposts without AMSes will see their secondary spawnpoints (Galaxy) removed before the hold of the control console even begins as Galaxies are cleared before the outpost or base is attacked. With an AMS, there's a chance you can spawn nearby and actually try an active defense or reclaiming your position. It'll probably expose your AMS soon after, so I don't see how this OP, rather than fun because you can actually fight over it rather than wait or spawn frustrated 500m along with no means of getting back in time to even try to hack back.

That might be what you intend for it, or think it fine, it's not what other players want and you're still telling them they can't have that and now also calling them selfish. That's insulting too, you know.

B. Have support classes. Medics and engies. just because you may be small, does not mean you shouldn't be using them.

Unfortunately, if we're talking small group, we can't bring all at once or more of one class. And if we bring a number of them, we'll still be severely disadvantaged because we're so diversified, we're completely dependent on individual team members. That's not proper teamwork, that's overdependency on individuals. Next to that forcing people to play "Class X" is great for RPGs (not), but horrible for FPS and sandbox games.

Yes we can bring medics, but with the current TTK, they'll be dead before they can heal as they're the first to be targeted by a smart enemy. Meaning bringing them is rather pointless in many situations unless you bring more, but in that case, you have the problem that you lose firepower. So it's a tradeoff between bad and worse case scenario.

C. Take a hard spawn if available at your target.

The problem with hard spawns is that you can't relocate them. And everyone knows where they are so they home in on it immediately. For that reason, we hardly used towers in PS1 aside from stalling the enemy.

That means they are completely and utterly predictable paths people have to take in order to reach another position fast. They are also very unsuited as a fall back point, not to mention far too far away from any positions you may wish to take (in general, between 150 and 500m away from other points and taken over within seconds by the enemy when you're not there - which in many cases you can't be because the base demands you move around).

If you have a small group and have to defend a far away point from a fixed point, you might as well just leave. The point in question can't be left alone for a few seconds meaning you have to instantly try to get back (which is already impossible), but since you didn't all die or spawn at the same time, there'll be gaps. If you have a big team, you can have a more constant stream of players. A small team is more easily picked off one by one.

D. Use Spawn Beacons to back up your spawn options if you get wiped.

Spawn beacons don't last long and can't be used several times in a row. I don't consider these more than a single use an therefore not really a suitable type of thing. I've also found they're highly unreliable at the moment.

I predict that you will go back to your spec ops argument when it sounds more like you mean "covert ops". Is a Galaxy as covert as a cloaked AMS? No. Does that mean that a cloaked AMS should be introduced to the game? I don't believe so.

Subjective. I do. And yes, covert ops are included with spec ops. Spec ops are more varied types of missions though.

Is the Spawn Beacon very covert? Not really, it can be easily seen. Does that mean that the enemy will always spot it or be able to get to it to destroy it? No, but it certainly helps for recovering once you begin to take casualties.

For one life, which doesn't help much if they can respawn every four seconds.

Feel free to add your opinion. I'd also like to know what kind of special operations you are interested in doing? And please, keep it civil.

I'll also add that again, I love the AMS and if the devs find a balanced way to bring it back, so be it.

Holds for sabotage (say generator and spawn control unit rooms), defense, flank attacks and sniping harassment, capture, precision strikes, raids, resecures, ambushes (incl. setting up minefields), general subterfuge and distraction missions (and if it ever comes back: draining). Typical behind enemy lines and relatively quiet border area stuff, usualy against bigger numbers than our own. Beyond that, I like to place AMSes such that an attack vector can be changed and a battle progress.

Being able to spawn without immediately attracting attention and thus having time to prepare is incredibly important. If you get attacked constantly due to being spotted constantly, then you can't execute your plans because you're too preoccupied defending your spawnpoint. Due to that same reason, Galaxies can't be placed just anywhere in a base and thus are usualy way too far from a target.

Beyond that, in larger groups not having to repair and guard your spawnpoint constantly is an excellent attribute because it allows you to do something more useful and fun with your time and for the team. Repairing a unit constantly might be useful, but it's not a fun job. For larger groups and more blatant assaults, it's particularly useful for sieges, defense and making the frontline creep forward, back up points, etc. It's very important that you can inch a spawn point closer, so the spawntimes become less influential and in favour of the attackers. Again, a Galaxy skips entire stages of the attack. Do you honestly think anyon will want to down Dahaka west gate shields if you can just ignore that area due to the Galaxy?

We don't expect to have enough players to guard any spawnpoint given the size of PS2 bases and outposts in relation to our own size and expected enemy numbers.