Should the Sunderer act as a spawn point?

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by 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.

This well-written post sums things up perfectly.

I don't want Sunderers to be spawn points because I'd rather have a Sunderer *loaded up* and rolling to a target than parked outside. In the first case, the Sunderer driver is performing an active delivery duty; he's an active participant in getting the troops to the battle. In the second case, the Sunderer driver is nothing more than an AMS driver -- finding a handy spot to park his vehicle and then leaving it there, or maybe setting up a defense of his parked spawn point. This makes him a passive participant and nothing more than a logistics delivery system that's run and done.

[Figment]

I don't want either Sunderer OR Galaxy as spawnpoint... I want an AMS.

If you feel there were too many spawnpoints, enlarging the interference radius would have sufficed.

Being able to attack a base from more than one angle while also not being predictable is much more important than being able to defend a base by nuking a single target the size of a small star system (it's not like you could actually miss a grounded, stationary Galaxy) because that would simply kill any assault too easily.

Divide roles between vehicles to create teamwork beyond your own group or unit.


Those that complain a Sund would just drive up and be left behind apparently hate the Galaxy and ANY OTHER STATIONARY SPAWNPOINT for the exact same reason. If not, they're hypocrites.

The last three posters seem to want zergs to come from a single origin point so they can easily farm them take out the SINGLE enemy target you can't miss and then wait for the next. The less spawnpoints, the more farming and the less likely it becomes a base is taken. Defensive play should not be encouraged too much because it's probably going to be easy enough using choke points as is, especially in massive fights. If you only think from the perspective from the defender, then yes, less spawn points is good. From the attacking perspective, the lack of options would be utterly appaling and could even make people leave the game if they get farmed too much and have no sense of progression.

Less options is also the death to imaginative and creative gameplay. And that limits replayability significantly.

[Tatwi]

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

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

That's how I looked at it as well. "Homogenization" of classes really watered down the variety (and as a consequence, the fun) of WoW and think that the suggested change to PS2 would take away from the strategy of the game rather than add to it.

[Kipper]

Originally Posted by Figment

The last three posters seem to want zergs to come from a single origin point so they can easily farm them take out the SINGLE enemy target you can't miss and then wait for the next.

That certainly isn't what I said, nor is it how I understood the other posts.

I expect attacks to to come in force and play cleverly, of course - depending on the nature of a fortification, I'd expect attackers to need to outnumber defenders something like 3:1 because defenders are dug in, have walls and turrets etc.

The problem that was being pointed or is that if you respawn too close to the action then being taken out of it didn't really have an effect. If both teams are effectively not losing numbers, because they're back up so quickly, how does one team break the deadlock?

However it is, I look forward to epic carnage

[IMMentat]

Being able to attack a base from more than one angle while also not being predictable is much more important than being able to defend a base by nuking a single target the size of a small star system.

I agree but allow me to raise some counterpoints.

AMS' typically forced attacking forces to become infantry only foot-zergs, their relative safety as spawn points meant that there was little need for true support or defences as they were more likley to draw attention to the AMS than keep them safe.
Troops have a LOT less movement potential than the average vehicle resulting in several conga-lines running straight at the intended target.

The average base/tower was not often cracked by a footzerg of rexo and agile though the ground floor entrances.
Usually, a few MBT, reavers, maxes and/or an organised squad would turn up and force a gap in the defences. The footzerg would then stroll in and start blocking/capturing chokepoints one at a time through weight of numbers.
In brief the tactic was to set up some satalite AMS', lock the enemy inside their own doors, move some AMS into ther CY/tower shadow then force a hole in the defences using a few breach specialists.
Forcing more players to drive to each objective encourages more sunderers which in turn encourages more MAX suits at each target (assuming MAXES still require base terminals to spawn), not to mention all the firepower additional vehicles provide to the attackers.

In terms of the sunderer.
Taking over the lodestars repair (and I assume re-arm) features gives players an excelent reason to bring a few along to any party (especially if one parked near to a galaxy would provide automated repairs as well as helping maintain its defensive vehicle screen). By having mobile repairs tied to a ground vehicle and not a flying brick, the support vehicle will never be far from those that need its help and its easier to move and conceal a ground vehicle than it is an aircraft.

On galaxies
Most galaxies were used as one-way-trip vehicles.
A squad/platoon/outfit would spawn one, fill one, declare a target then mass bail when arrived. The galaxy itself would usually end up smashing into the ground or an inconvenient leaf wherin it would explode and end its brief existance.
Public galaxies were both rare and a bad idea due to a Gal being a high profile vehicle, with no set route and long long repair times, 1-2 airchav could easily bring enough pain to prevent more than a couple of journeys from happening before the gal got destroyed/abandoned.
The spawn points provide galaxies with much needed utility and if i read the info provided correctly. Deployed galaxies will have more defensive options (guns for certain, shileds as a possibe sidegrade?) than an in-flight Gal.

In the end its not the number of spawnpoints but the laziness that "safe" local spawnpoints inspire in attackers that I have a problem with.

[Noivad]

I voted No. A lot of good thought in most of the posts. I do not like the combining of Vehicle type roles in PS2. I think it cuts down on teamwork. Every vehicle in PS1 has a role to fill and did it very well for skilled players. For those of you who said certain vehicles were not effective in PS1, you probally were just not skilled enough, organized enough to play them effectively. Veterans know that some people were skilled enough to keep their vehicles up for more then an hour, while in constant engagements with the enemy.

The Devs should do to Vehicle Roles what they are doing with the classes. Keep the roles seperate. Keep them more team oriented. Stop catering to the solo player experience. Anyone can get that from any other FPS game.

Its been said by higby I think, that there are up to 4 or 6 capture areas inside bases now and they are at least 4 time larger then ps1 bases. Some of them with their own spawn points that an empire can capture. That means two or more empires spawning at a base may be possible.

If the devs stick to their statements, then, vehicles will not be able to get into infantry fighting areas of bases, ie courtyards, and terrain will prevent some or all vehicles from entering certain areas. There will be fighting on the sides of cliffs. And there will be up and down fighting. There will be jump packs that let you fly. It can take 15 mins to go from the basement to the roof in some bases. They have elevators. The maps are huge. With multiple terrains. Multiple weather effects, Multiple lighting effects.

Stop thinking small. PS1 was big in its day but not anymore. PS2 is coming to town. I played project Entropia and it took me a month, 6 to 8 hrs a day playing to get to all of the bases in that game, with their seemless maps by foot. Now it has vehicles and it takes a lot less time to move around their maps, if you can afford it.

In Sony's DCUO the maps are very big as well. You can fly in that game and its amazing moving around cities, with multi story buildings like New York City. The custominization in that game is extensive as well. and well done. Its FTP by SONY, give it a try.

In PS 1 on searhuse for instance it could take at east 20 mins to drive from top left to bottom right of the map. It was faster going to Santuary and waiting on a shuttle to drop then driving. Even if it takes just 15 mins on ps1 to cross the map then thats equlivent to 1 hour of game play time its gonna take to cross the new map in ps2. It 64 square kilometers.

So gals are ams tools for that, I can see their purpose in that role. Flying dilevery ams service. I still would perfer the Gal and Loady one with a skyguatd and the other with an ams then the all in one gal now. Are you really gonna drive a sunderer or an ams that distance. Probally not. An ATV would be smarter if you have to go by vehicle, and an ATV can probally go where Tanks and sunderers can't. Of course the mosquito will still be my favorite for rapid deployment and will be required for my members to have the basic one, just to get around as a rapif deplotment vehicle.

I believe its been stated that everyone will have access to all basic vehicles, just won't be able to do all the specialized stuff if you don't train them up. There is no cert system like PS1.

So Sunderers as an ams , on a plain or open grassland repairing Tanks on the move to a base located on grasslands. I can see that happening, but I would perfer a seperate vhicle like the Loadstar to play that repair role.

Yes its ugly, but large Outfits did use it to transport AMS and Tanks to a battle, you bet your ass they did. Of course the majority of the people making statements, give the impression, that they did not play PS1 in its hay day. You know the player type, the guys who quit one game for another game, that just came out. Yypical solo player, who left for BF3, who unsubed because they wanted to try something else like WOW. I was with an Outfit that did just that.

iI am even ashamed to say that went most of the outfits left ps1 to go to other games that I allowed myself to go into another game waiting for Global agenda to come out, the game that would repalce Planetside. LMAO. We went to EVE online, but a lot of my people did not go and were absorbed by other outfits that stayed in PS1. Anout 6 months later I did return to PS1 and have been playing since. I till sub it, and there are still good fights to be found.

The ULTRA alliance had one unit that specialized in Support Roles. Its all they did. Fixing and Transporting stuff.

Of course that was when ULTRA used to pop Lock 2 planets at a time, and still have reserves hitting other planets / conts. Its amazing what you can do with 300 people on a Team speak server at once.

And the hate tells that ULTRA would get for locking poor solo players off a planet - tsk tsk.

Of course we could ask the Devs to make just one aircraft and one ground vehicle, that could do everything and a Solo player could operate either one of them an be real uber.

Wait lets make a ground vehicle fly, put tank guns on it, air defense guns, anti infantry guns, allow it to carry another like it in its trunk, transport and respawn everyone and then we can eliminate teamwork all together for vehicles.


Yes the SOLO players will love it!!!!!!!: evil: I want my tank to do everything. I want my gal to do everything. I want my aircraft to do everything. I want my Sunderer to do everthing. SOLO players Unite.

[Zulthus]

The Sunderer should be something like the MCV from Command and Conquer.

For anyone who hasn't played any of the games, it looked like this (I couldn't find better pictures)


And transformed into this:


That should be either a different vehicle or a Sunderer variant imo. Basically a minimum size vehicle pad, a couple equipment terminals and a respawn tube. It would be powered by resources that get refilled by an ANT, so that it couldn't be functional indefinitely.

[Malorn]

I agree with Kevmo's reasoning. If the Sunderer was an AMS it would lose it's value as a base crashing action vehicle. People would want to protect them and not "waste" them by driving into a hot zone where they might actually be useful. And most importantly, if you can spawn from one you have no real need to actually be transported in it. You can wait for it to get to its destination and then spawn at it.

I like how the Sunderer is currently designed. It can support other vehicles in a convoy and when a push isn't practical it can play the support role. And for offensives you pile in and go put concentrated force at a capture point. Seems like a lot of fun to me. Last thing I want to deal with is people whining because you used a sunderer for a transport role when people really wanted an AMS.

AMS fits better with a Galaxy.

[The Kush]

It should stay how it is

[nomotog]

No spawn needed, just give it more armor. The sunder is a shock and aw vehicle. It's meant to be a real big alpha strike not a slow grind like the gal is.

[Figment]

Btw, if people think the Galaxy is a suitable spawnpoint, let's see you fly a Galaxy over a base and then land it somewhere outside it (somewhere you'd normally place an AMS) and see how long it lasts. In fact, place it right next to an AMS to simulate the spawnpoint and see how long each lasts.

Then do the same with a Sunderer. Just park each right outside a cloakfield, in full view and use its turrets to defend it. I'm quite sure the AMS owners will "love" you.

[Xyntech]

I don't have a problem with overlap for things like AA/AV/AI, but overlap for something as specialized as spawning, especially when the Sunderer is already a lot like a more armored by slower and landlocked version of the Galaxy, just seems like it would be more of the same.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

The Sunderer should be something like the MCV from Command and Conquer.

For anyone who hasn't played any of the games, it looked like this (I couldn't find better pictures)


And transformed into this:


That should be either a different vehicle or a Sunderer variant imo. Basically a minimum size vehicle pad, a couple equipment terminals and a respawn tube. It would be powered by resources that get refilled by an ANT, so that it couldn't be functional indefinitely.

Instead of deploying into a base, what if it could be used as an engineering vehicle to build structures too large for an ordinary engineer. It could build spawn points, without actually becoming a spawn point itself, along with being able to build many other large deployables.

[Kipper]

Has it actually been said that you can spawn on a Sunderer? I know it has been revealed of the Galaxy but... I only recall re-arming mentioned for the truck.

PS1 bases were big squares of walls with a complex inside which ultimately required you to be on foot to capture.

PS2 bases with their size and their multiple capture points will mean that you can roll right up to some of the capture points in vehicles and expect the enemy to do the same, and you want people to take their tanks and Sundy's into the fray, frankly.

I don't think people will be landing many Galaxies right at capture points because they are bigger targets and more of a defensive structure, their guns are to keep people away from coming to it, not so that it can bring pain to them - thats why it has to deploy. It brings pain indirectly by dropping and spawning troops.

[Figment]

My sarcasmometer is tingling. :o

[KTNApollo]

I wasn't aware that Sunderers acted as class changing/rearm stations and vehicle repair stations. Source?