Is the Galaxy a viable spawn?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Bad example. Heavily armed invisible people are OP.

Yet they're adding both shotguns and sniper rifles to (temp) cloakers. That I actually have severe issues with. The devs are thinking WAY too action oriented.

In other words, I simply can't come up with any senseful area limitations to make it NOT OP. My point still stands - a (relatively) small spawnpoint right next to a control console is a recipe for undeniable success.

Define small. Something the size of a Sunderer or slightly larger or even slightly smaller is not small.

A buggy would be small, but we're not talking buggies here. Were talking something of this size:



Respawn beacons (new deployable the size of a grenade for squad spawning). THOSE are small and can be obtained every spawn, anywhere. But those are okay?

I can easily define that for you. 100-150m interference radius. Can be played around with for fine tuning, but would make it completely unspammable. If you can't find AMSes in that area, you wouldn't find the Galaxy either (meaning you'd either be blind, or your keyboard/mouse is broken). Tracking down an AMS doesn't take severe skill. Just look at how easy it is for people in PS1 to track down AMS by simply flying over an area or following the dots. Hell, even hit indicators will give them away as they give attack vector information, which every time you come closer become more accurate. Liberators would make short work of any found PS2 AMS. But in the meantime, you can at least have a field fight.

1. Infiltrators are able to hack teminals. Their primary ability is just locked as of now.
2. I myself will "spam" an AMS, because I can just leave it where I want and cloaking bubble will just do all the job. Galaxy doesn't have that privilege.

Either way... I will not cry about having an AMS. Nor will I start supporting having it over Galaxy.

1. What terminals? (Unfortunately, that's an ironic comment due to lack of things to potentially hack in PS2, literally and because there are so few terms in places you can reach, what with some terms actually being inside spawns points you can't enter as non-Light Assault. Even if you're a friendly player...). I'm so going to miss vehicle jacking.
2. Great, but if there's three others in place (like in PS1), you will just have to sit back further with that AMS, thus slowly building up a frontline and a more continuous war with fall back positions. Currently fights end abruptly due to lack of interference radius and lack of nearby spawn points.

Why should you have to babysit an AMS/Galaxy? Do you enjoy continuous repair duty for the next 10 years over actually playing a FPS game? If you want to look at a rotating pixel for hours at end, I would advice PacMan.

And I'm not saying remove the Galaxy, I'm saying complement it with the AMS, it having a different playstyle.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

Define small. Something the size of a Sunderer or slightly larger or even slightly smaller is not small.

A buggy would be small, but we're not talking buggies here. Were talking something of this size:

Image

Sunderer is still "less hittable" than a Galaxy, if you understand what I mean.

Originally Posted by Figment

Respawn beacons (new deployable the size of a grenade for squad spawning). THOSE are small and can be obtained every spawn, anywhere. But those are okay?

A big pillar of light makes them rather easy to spot and they have a timer for usage. Seems senseful to me.

Originally Posted by Figment

I can easily define that for you. 100-150m interference radius. Can be played around with for fine tuning, but would make it completely unspammable. If you can't find AMSes in that area, you wouldn't find the Galaxy either (meaning you'd either be blind, or your keyboard/mouse is broken).

If the radius is too small - you can still park it next a point. If the radius is too big - you can't park Galaxies on tower airpads. I doubt devs will just go and handcraft every interference radius values.

Originally Posted by Figment

1. What terminals? (Unfortunately, that's an ironic comment due to lack of things to potentially hack in PS2, literally and because there are so few terms in places you can reach, what with some terms actually being inside spawns points you can't enter as non-Light Assault. Even if you're a friendly player...). I'm so going to miss vehicle jacking.

Just in case that irony still included the unawareness: Vehicle terminals.

Originally Posted by Figment

Why should you have to babysit an AMS/Galaxy? Do you enjoy continuous repair duty for the next 10 years over actually playing a FPS game? If you want to look at a rotating pixel for hours at end, I would advice PacMan.

Babysitting a Galaxy, in a proper fight is far more interesting and rewarding, than an AMS. In fact a deployed Galaxy is a small fortress, defense of which is a worthwhile activity.

[batfastard]

My opinion:

Make the galaxy more of a troop transport like it used to be. Bring back the AMS or at the very least make the sunderer the AMS. Having a galaxy as a spawn point allows too great of an advantage when it can be landed in bases or on top of towers. Also, in the original planetside galaxies were actually used to hot drop to get troops inside bases, now u just park it inside and hop out.

[Scopedog]

I think its viable and not only that but very much good as is, its not drive and forget like an ams and I like this aspect its about getting a foot hold to spawn. And its perfectly viable either go safe and far away or risky and close.

The Sunderer is perfect now being troop transport and vehicle REPAIR and RE-ARM it has its role in all ground warfare and is essential in armoured columns.

What I do feel is that its too slow, in general all air vehicles are at least 100 kph to slow thats 60mph for you others I feel air needs more speed and gravity influence would be nice.

But getting back to OP the gal is viable, dough it all needs more tweaks beta and all but its heading in the right direction.

[Raka Maru]

I like spawning in Gals, I don't like operating one because I don't like to fly.

Very simple, very direct. Bring back the AMS or sundered variant. We're talking play styles, and so far, only flyboys get to run mobile spawn points.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Sunderer is still "less hittable" than a Galaxy, if you understand what I mean.

Definitely and VERY MUCH THE POINT. The Galaxy is too big. WAY TOO BIG.

If you disagree that's your perogative, but a Galaxy is simply unsuitable for just that reason: it's too easy to track down and find cover for. Smaller is better and if you can move at ground height it is harder to detect if you move through the field. Those are all EXCELLENT QUALITIES for a spawnpoint.

A big pillar of light makes them rather easy to spot and they have a timer for usage. Seems senseful to me.

You can deploy them inside you know. ;p

If the radius is too small - you can still park it next a point. If the radius is too big - you can't park Galaxies on tower airpads. I doubt devs will just go and handcraft every interference radius values.

And you should. You can only spawn at one at a time anyway, so that's not a problem either. In fact, it'll ensure some elongated fighting which there isn't now and that's a widespread complaint (length of battle being too short and too abruptly ended) you completely ignore. And that's primarily because the Galaxy does not suffice, at all.

And why the blood hell would they not attach standard interference radiusses to AMSes if they did that for Aegis Turrets, TRAPs, ALL CE, AMSes, Routers and several other things in PS1? What kind of weird logic are you on about? The terrain does not determine interference radii and it has nothing to do with that! If you make interference radii spherical, instead of cilindrical (like in PS1, which made them harder to place in Annwn), then it's no problem.

And really you're just griping here for the sake of griping. Basically you're saying we should remove AMSes from PS1. FFS NewSith, don't be such a tool.

Backup AMSes are a GOOD thing. Stop making a problem out of a non-issue! These will cost resources too and will be on timers AND will be just as hard to obtain locally as a Galaxy. If you want to place it in the middle of a Tech base, fine. It'll be found immediately since all enemies will move through that area when they go for the CC points.

If you want to leave the game where you can spam rockets with a bunch of aircav from 1.500 miles because you saw a barn parked somewhere that can't defend itself at that distance and think that "fortress" will last, then that's your perogative, but I'm not going to support such an irresponsible design choice.

The battle should be persistent and if they can bring AMSes, so can you. So stop pretending it's a huge issue.

And yes, cloakers should be able to jack to at the very least deconstruct them if not take them over, just like in PS1. Tracking down AMSes, pinpointing them for my outfit and taking them out was one of my roles as a scout infil.

But hey, let's keep stripping all subversion roles from the infils and keep making them more into LOLDAMAGE-assassins like the PS2 devs in all their wisdom have been doing.

If you never think in countermeasures then sure I can imagine why you would think they'd be OP. Come on NewSith, you know I'm not going over one night of ice when I make a statement and you know very well how accurate I am with in-game judgments, predictions and strategies.

Don't strip spec ops tools away for fear. The Zerg is far too blunt to use precision instruments without giving their positions away.

AMSes should be placed next to control points. In fact, if you want to ensure it's found rapidly, please do and don't make your enemy search long for it.

Just in case that irony still included the unawareness: Vehicle terminals.

Majority of which are ATV, any others are smack down in the middle of enemy spawn terrain save the Tech Plant, which however can be fired at from all directions. It's not a problem.

Babysitting a Galaxy, in a proper fight is far more interesting and rewarding, than an AMS. In fact a deployed Galaxy is a small fortress, defense of which is a worthwhile activity.

Fine, you go babysit if you enjoy that. Let me do something else because I play this game to fight, not to hold down a button and watch a side of an aircraft for the entirety of the game.

I have no problem with doing the occasional repair and one of the only people responsible enough to rep a base after we conquered it in PS1, but I'm not that easily satisfied by a game that I can have my entire game be around guarding a spawnpoint that stops me from advancing on the very reason I brought a spawnpoint.

NewSith, I'm an infil and my outfit is about stealth holds and quick raids. I have no use for a bloody fortress that distracts from my objective! And your outfit doesn't have much use for that either actually. Ask Jolly, Korn and others if they agree with you.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

And why the blood hell would they not attach standard interference radiusses to AMSes if they did that for Aegis Turrets, TRAPs, ALL CE, AMSes, Routers and several other things in PS1? What kind of weird logic are you on about? The terrain does not determine interference radii and it has nothing to do with that! If you make interference radii spherical, instead of cilindrical (like in PS1, which made them harder to place in Annwn), then it's no problem.

I was mistakenly thinking that you were offering a way to limit the ability to park Gals and AMSes next to a capture point.

As for the outfit mates' points of view, - it's outfit's internal business.

[Crator]

Spot on Figment!

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

I was mistakenly thinking that you were offering a way to limit the ability to park Gals and AMSes next to a capture point.

Placement should be up to the player. If distance is an issue, then clearly the distance of the CC to the outside is wrong. And for many bases (read: virtually all) it is currently far too easy to reach CC's out of the weird fear that people might setup defensive perimeters around it... Look at the defenders and attackers distance to a CC in PS1 though; around 10 seconds distance, tops and winning is done by cutting people of from reinforcing the CC. If the issue in PS2 is they'd become undefensible and unholdable, then that just illustrates that the CCs are too easy to reach. That has nothing to do with the spawnpoint locations, but because every controlpoint has just one room or less between it and the outside.

Someone on these forums said that all bases are small inside. That is correct. The Tech Plant is tiny inside and has no defensible positions around the CC. One jump and you are at the CC. Two jumps and you are in high ground position and furthest distance you can travel inside. The teleporters and outside area don't mean anything there. You can't respawn inside since barracks are outside, it's nothing more than a glorified hangar with some sheds around it. If you can put an AMS in, like you can place Gals on top, then fine. It's going to be found and camped very soon, but at least you could spawn troops to defend that area without having to go outside. But once your enemy drops your tech shields, your AMS would die instantly due to lack of cover. It would not be as fortified as a Galaxy, so I can't see any problem.


I would imagine they would have interference radii just like the usual, to limit the amount of AMSes in an area. I don't know why they want people to park groups of Gals together now though. There is no interference radius unfortunately and it is currently possible for one outfit to bring 20+ Galaxies (and by the time they'd be all dead all would be available again, etc). I also don't get why they auto-deploy.

That is an issue to me as well. I don't mind them landing next to each other, I do mind them all being deployed next to each other. It benefits large groups too much.

I'm just thankful our zerg players aren't that imaginative. If they had been, PS1 would have been both more fun and quite hellish at times because they'd make good use of their options.

But this type of spam is why I'm mordicus opposed to "give everyone access to everything". Because once one zerg outfit realises they can spam spawnpoints and sets the example...

[Bittermen]

Originally Posted by Scopedog

I think its viable and not only that but very much good as is, its not drive and forget like an ams and I like this aspect its about getting a foot hold to spawn. And its perfectly viable either go safe and far away or risky and close.

The Sunderer is perfect now being troop transport and vehicle REPAIR and RE-ARM it has its role in all ground warfare and is essential in armoured columns.

What I do feel is that its too slow, in general all air vehicles are at least 100 kph to slow thats 60mph for you others I feel air needs more speed and gravity influence would be nice.

But getting back to OP the gal is viable, dough it all needs more tweaks beta and all but its heading in the right direction.

Idk I've seen some pretty awesome gal drops... and they were from the opposing side.

[Figment]

The too short point of DJEclipses point: only cater to the zerg and chase all other players out. Particularly smart, subversive, stealthy and tactically ones.

Also: EXPLOSIONS.

[Figment]

DJ, you are in the wrong thread. Try searching the PS2 forums for conquest systems. Try looking through threads I started. I'm glad you think I'm cool, but please, consider what this topic is about: the Galaxy.

Stop trolling. You are bad at it.

[MaximusRudedog]

AMS please!

[NewSith]

Figgy, just for your sole attention:

Q: Is the Galaxy a viable spawn?
A: AMS please!

I really hope you can understand what I'm saying by compilating this.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Figgy, just for your sole attention:

Q: Is the Galaxy a viable spawn?
A: AMS please!

I really hope you can understand what I'm saying by compilating this.

I see the problem, you got the answer wrong.
A: Gal is only suitable for zerg play, hence not always viable, hence we need a stealthier alternative.

The problem is that because you think it is viable in SOME situations it is ALWAYS viable. My answer is way too nuanciated for someone who wants yes or no. If you think yes or no answers are good, then you just try to get a biased answer to support a status quo.

So if the question is "is it viable" and based on one single or set of situations one would say yes, then the question is poorly phrased, because it fails to ask if it is always or in the majority of situations viable. To that the answer is a definite no. It fails to probe for a deeper and complete answer. So if you base your answer on a basic yes, then you are in tunnelvision.