Should the Sunderer act as a spawn point?

[DviddLeff]

As we know the Gal is the deployable spawn point, with the Sundy bus being a vehicle repair and rearm station.

But I feel that the Sunderer should be able to act as a spawn point, perhaps sacrificing its vehicle support role to do so - as a customisation option for players.

Vote!

[Figment]

Why make the Sunderer into an AMS if you can just make an AMS model instead? Or rather, a fully customizable support vehicle instead which you can "build" forward bases with? For instance: radar jamming, AWACS radar station, spawnpoint, repair bay, etc. Hell, why not have vehicles that can deploy themselves as bunkers or mini towers for snipers and scouts for all I care?

Why cramp every role into a vehicle that's designed to do something COMPLETELY different?

I don't like the mixing of the offensive and repair roles of the Sunderer for instance, because that makes it "too easy" to setup something with just two Sunderers. Some effort, interaction and reliance on others would be nice. Having all these combination roles drastically reduces interaction between (groups of) players because everyone becomes self-sufficient pretty fast.

I mean, are they that desperate for texture and memory space while they make handmade maps of 64 square kilometer miles?

[Rat]

I dont know if the sunderer is the answer, but I do think there will be a need for another spawn vehicle, especially if the galaxy will only be able to pulled at specific facilities.

[Baneblade]

The Gal can fly, the Sunderer needs to be more utility focused. As it stands, the Sunderer will end up being as popular as before it had an EMP in PS1.

Make the Sunderer a deployable forward operating base.

[Sgt Shultz]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

As we know the Gal is the deployable spawn point, with the Sundy bus being a vehicle repair and rearm station.

But I feel that the Sunderer should be able to act as a spawn point, perhaps sacrificing its vehicle support role to do so - as a customisation option for players.

Vote!

I can somewhat see the parallel between the sunderer and the galaxy, but frankly I think we need to understand the tradeoff between ground transport and air transport. Does it have a longer timer, does it cost more resources, etc etc etc.

This might actually be a feature for a constructable forward base platform similar to what Evilpig had discussed.

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

I can somewhat see the parallel between the sunderer and the galaxy, but frankly I think we need to understand the tradeoff between ground transport and air transport. Does it have a longer timer, does it cost more resources, etc etc etc.

This might actually be a feature for a constructable forward base platform similar to what Evilpig had discussed.

The Galaxy will be faster and more maneuverable, so even if they could both act as spawn points I think we'll see the Gal in use more often.

That being said, the Sundy is essentially the ground version of a Gal, so I'm certainly not against giving it the same capability!

[kaffis]

The Sunderer needs *unique* things to boost its appeal as a transport (since, of course, flying is almost always > ground-bound), not duplicated features stolen off its biggest rival.

[Kipper]

My assumption is that the Galaxy is there to hot-drop the first attackers, then land a little way out and act as forward operating base to stream new troops into the fray at a reasonable clip, while trying to avoid coming under too much direct attack.

Meanwhile the Sunderer will be more disposable and as a result, try to push further forward and act much more offensively and closer to the target.

I don't recall hearing that Sunderers would be spawn points, I thought they were just for re-arming and vehicle repairs?

[Truemedic]

Originally Posted by kaffis

The Sunderer needs *unique* things to boost its appeal as a transport (since, of course, flying is almost always > ground-bound), not duplicated features stolen off its biggest rival.

I agree with this and I will add some of my own to it.

Having multiple vehicles with respawn points reduces the value of living considerably in my opinion.

I understand the times have changed but a lot of what I felt back when I played in 2005-2007 is that you either spawn on an AMS, Tower or base, or took a vehicle there. When you died it sucked because you knew you could have a long journey to the battlefield again if your AMS was down but that only made you fight harder if you knew your respawns were down.

If the sunderer were to have a respawn mechanic as well then that would bring up the total number of respawns at a base to potentially 3. Squad leader, Galaxy, Sunderer.

This not only puts more pressure on the defending team as enemy reinforcements are nearly endless with 3 respawns (I understand spawning on a squad leader is limited but that's not the point). But players will simply throw themselves at the the capture zones without caring.

I can understand how nice it would be to have a land vehicle with a respawn but with the galaxy in play, I'm pretty sure this is why the dev team made it this way.

[SniperSteve]

I am all for keeping roles of vehicles separate. So I voted 'No'.

[Ruffdog]

Voted No. I think a force should be respawning in fewer places not more.

Originally Posted by Rat

I dont know if the sunderer is the answer, but I do think there will be a need for another spawn vehicle, especially if the galaxy will only be able to pulled at specific facilities.

I think it is a good thing if Gals are the only mobile spawn. Less spawn points means more requirement for APCs. And APCs rock imo. Troops are needed to get territory right? APCs separate the men from the boys in terms of tactical play. Air cover + tanks to go with your fully loaded Sundies = win.

Originally Posted by headcrab13

..even if they could both act as spawn points I think we'll see the Gal in use more often.

The Gal I think should be like PS1 in terms of where and how often drivers can pull them (see my point above).

Just my opinions.

[Kipper]

Originally Posted by WildVS

I think trees should act as spawn points. Seriously though, don't we have enough spawn points already? Dying should be more of a penalty than a minor inconvenience.

They want people to be spending less time looking for a fight than and more time fighting, I can see the logic. If you die in anything worth resources, you've lost those. Maybe even if you spawned grenades etc, they're gone too?

That said, if spawning around an objective is too easy and you're back in it too quickly - its difficult to see how you will get a decisive result in an individual battle since people will be back almost as soon as they've been killed, making it hard to push forward / drive people back through cutting down their numbers.

[Baneblade]

I'm not really convinced the Gal should be a respawn. If anything it should be the Sunderer that gets it.

[IMMentat]

more vehicles driving around and less footzegs from hundreds of local spawnpoints please.
Grinding down the opposition with limitless quantities of local spawnpoints was one of the less appealing factors of the geriatric/later planetside1 gameplay. Though this was mostly down to multiple AMS vehicles being hard find, let alone take down once you were getting pressed back inside your own buildings.

I want to see loaded sunderers supported by ground vehicles and aircraft zipping along the continent to take on bases, towers and resource nodes.
Galaxies by their nature are big, obvious and less-common (I assume a foothold/dropship centre will remain a requirement) making them perfect foci for attack and defence.

Keep the battles mobile, the troops on the playing field (instead of tied up in a spawn matrix) and let a well played defence earn itself a breather for wiping out a valuable spawnpoint. Teamwork and co-ordination should be the deciding factors of victory, not unlimited local respawns.

[Kipper]

Originally Posted by IMMentat

Keep the battles mobile, the troops on the playing field (instead of tied up in a spawn matrix) and let a well played defence earn itself a breather for wiping out a well defended spawnpoint. teamwork and co-ordination should be the deciding factors of victory, not unlimited local respawns.

Yes, this... Because I want defenders in a base to literally be up against it and calling players (via voice or missions or whatever) from other regions to do air-strikes against spawn points.

I expect getting reinforcement from other directions to protect a base be a common tactic, rather than people inside of said base trying to push out.