News: Twitter Chat and Nanite Systems Galaxy - Page 9

Figment · 2012-01-20, 06:25 AM

Think in design cues it has more incommon with the AVRO bombers, like this Lancaster. :P

But yes. >.> That'd make more sense, but they didn't put it on the original Galaxy to give it a weakside if I recall correctly.

Knocky · 2012-01-20, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Think it has more incommon with the AVRO bombers, like this Lancaster. :P

American or British....both bombers still have a turret on the roof.

Figment · 2012-01-20, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Knocky

American or British....both bombers still have a turret on the roof.

Hmhm. The original Liberator was clearly inspired as a small version of these WWII bombers. The new one seems to be a bit more AC-130 inspired.

EDIT: you reckon both those turnable turrets underneath the front end are gun emplacements, or just one of 'm with the other being a camera for the pilot (would be handy for landing, dropping and deploying)?

This does make me wonder where the guns are placed exactly. There don't seem to be back end cues for a gun underneath, so perhaps there's one on the point of the back?

Shade Millith · 2012-01-20, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Knocky

Number one....good luck getting people to actually SIT in the parked Gal while their friends advance the front line.

Number two....OS's

Number three....Looking at the weapon placement in the pix released, there is not one that will fire ABOVE the Gal ( parked Gal = AirCav bait )

Number four....Tanks will own a parked Gal BECAUSE, if a Gal was equipped with AV that was worth a damn, then it would be a GG and the Lib would have no role.

All that being said....I will probably be flying mores Gals then driving Vannies.

Two and Four were problems with the old AMS, and 1 and 3 are problems only because it has weapons attached. This is just going to be like a much heavier armored AMS with point defences, sans cloak. (It wasn't that difficult to find a cloaked AMS).

As for point 3, perhaps when it deploys the guns move to a more useful location?

Knocky · 2012-01-20, 06:36 AM

Remember.....the point of the PS2 Gal is to drop troops AND land and DEPLOY...the PS1 Gal was supposed to fly at the cealing to drop troops here, there and everywhere.

Seems to me that it would be imperative that the Gal have a roof-mounted turret even if it is only chaingun and not some AA weapon system.

There is even a convenient flat spot on the roof that a domed turret can be added without changing the body.

Figment · 2012-01-20, 06:42 AM

One thing I keep asking myself is, how are people going to handle and use them in large numbers? Not one, but three, four, ten Galaxies flying over the base. That all depends on their angles.

If that is indeed a bottom, front mounted gun, then you can fire down with it. Which may mean it's going to be a pretty decent camping unit in low pop fights.

If you give them all top turrets too, they'll be pretty tough cookies to take out with the amount of cover fire and hitpoints that can generate in multi-gal fights. I'm starting to wonder how much AA you need to take one out (not so much in a "here they come" fashion, but more of a "damned campers, we want to push out" fashion).

Luckily there's going to be a lot of buildings in the CY to use as cover and bases are larger meaning they probably need more to camp all doors. I wonder how intricate the connections between buildings are (how many entry points to main base etc).

vswake · 2012-01-20, 08:37 AM

Galaxy deploying could mean changing shape, presumeably with space for spawning and the guns redeploying for a more defensive position

Figment · 2012-01-20, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by vswake

Galaxy deploying could mean changing shape, presumeably with space for spawning and the guns redeploying for a more defensive position

As I don't see external usecues for that in the vehicle exterior, I kinda doubt that, but who knows.

Perhaps the door in the back just opens up to reveal a spawnroom and terms.

Though since you already spawn in your class, rather than pyjamas and as there may be more people spawning at one Galaxy, I'd say there's even a chance equipment consoles are not even physically present anymore. In which case re-equiping could simply be proximity based like the Lodestar/Repair Silo from PS1. I mean, exit animations are gone as well for similar purposes apparently.

This to avoid the issues of crowding we had with the first AMS design for PS1 (two tubes, one console, instead of two consoles, one tube like we have now), in order to speed up a player getting to the action.

In terms of emersiveness that'd be a shame. If that'd be the case, I wonder if shield (like armour in PS1) is affected if you change class. Could potentially be mildly exploitable to recharge shield in fights I suppose by switching between character setups that have either a higher fully charged shield or a faster recharge, depending on the implementaiton of switching gear.

Hmm... Could prevent such exploit by the shield health status not being affected by switching suits and recharging from last health status or even zero to simulate standard suit after spawning.

klu · 2012-01-20, 02:05 PM

did they ever give a time for the twitter q&a?

Johari · 2012-01-20, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by klu

did they ever give a time for the twitter q&a?

Came here to ask the same thing.

I'm glad we got some more news and pictures of the Gal. Great times will be had.

Knocky · 2012-01-20, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by klu

did they ever give a time for the twitter q&a?

This is the answer I got from em.....

I doubt he was serious since the Q&A is supposed to be in the afternoon and not midnight.

Originally Posted by arclegger

When does the narwhal bacon?

Johari · 2012-01-20, 02:12 PM

Also, does anyone else see any visible forms of propulsion? On the original Gal you could see the thrusters/engines on the end of the wings but I don't see any on this one. Maybe they're just on the rear? Cause I don't think theres a picture showing the back of the Gal.

Knocky · 2012-01-20, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Johari

Also, does anyone else see any visible forms of propulsion? On the original Gal you could see the thrusters/engines on the end of the wings but I don't see any on this one. Maybe they're just on the rear? Cause I don't think theres a picture showing the back of the Gal.

Scroll up to the pix of the Gal on this page.

See that blackish stub on the back of the engine nacelle? That is the thrust port.

What I don't see is a separate section that can swivel to vector thrust down for takeoff/landing.

Unless the entire nacelle swivels.

Figment · 2012-01-20, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Knocky

Scroll up to the pix of the Gal on this page.

See that blackish stub on the back of the engine nacelle? That is the thrust port.

What I don't see is a separate section that can swivel to vector thrust down for takeoff/landing.

Unless the entire nacelle swivels.

If you look at the sideview close up a page back, there's a pixelated line around the wingbase near the hull.

Could be that indicates a separate section that can rotate? (Then again, there are more pixelated lines) Either way, black bits on the nacelles at the end look like air intakes.

LordReaver · 2012-01-21, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Very cool that it is deployed similar to an AMS and is not a flying spawn point as we first expected.

Honestly, it's so absurd, that it's shocking anybody thought that to be the case.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode