New Idea! Remove AMS. Thoughts? - Page 2

Ssential · 2013-04-07, 08:00 AM

Removing them is too drastic.

But, in my opinion, a lone sunderer shouldn't be able to upkeep 100+ guys that constantly spawn. I don't think this is good for gameplay. A sunderer should have something like an energy pool that is being depleted when people spawn. It would recharge automatically but not fast enough to let so many guys spawn constantly. Obviously you would need to know before spawning how much energy a sunderer has left. This would create the need of more than just one deployed sunderer to maintain the offensive, nerfing them a bit but making the whole process more tactical.

Silent Thunder · 2013-04-07, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ssential

Removing them is too drastic.

But, in my opinion, a lone sunderer shouldn't be able to upkeep 100+ guys that constantly spawn. I don't think this is good for gameplay. A sunderer should have something like an energy pool that is being depleted when people spawn. It would recharge automatically but not fast enough to let so many guys spawn constantly. Obviously you would need to know before spawning how much energy a sunderer has left. This would create the need of more than just one deployed sunderer to maintain the offensive.

The problem with ticket based systems is you run into the "Group of Idiots" problem. Naemly that a small group of idiots who don't care about the system can cause an entire offensive to stall by eating up a dispurportionatly large portion of the respawn tickets. A good example is any round based FPS (Battlefield perhaps not being the best example since territory control effects tickets far more than respawns. Empires mod for Source engine is the one that comes to mind for me, but perhaps thats a bit obscure.) where usually the bottom 4 or 5 players make up on their own around two thirds of the respawn tickets used. In these cases the careful, methodical players are actually punished by the wastefullness of their own teammates.

Sirisian · 2013-04-07, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Ssential

A sunderer should have something like an energy pool that is being depleted when people spawn.

Progressive spawn timers from PS1 are a better solution. If you die fast after spawning it increases the spawn time at your last spawn location by a few seconds. After a while you don't feel like spawning there and move to another spawn location to fight.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-04-07, 08:27 AM

April - Creating "No Deploy" zones for AMS equipped Sunderers
We are currently discussing mechanics which would allow designers to designate areas within a base or facility that Sunderers cannot deploy in. We've been re-evaluating the feature and are still experimenting with it and where it might make sense to employ.

We realize there are some concerns regarding the potential implementation of this feature (as some of you have commented about), and we are proceeding with caution. It's likely we'd want to get some feedback from the Live Test server before committing to move forward with this on Live - assuming we ended up getting that far.

i prefer this than removing them .

Ssential · 2013-04-07, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Progressive spawn timers from PS1 are a better solution. If you die fast after spawning it increases the spawn time at your last spawn location by a few seconds. After a while you don't feel like spawning there and move to another spawn location to fight.

This seems to be a much better solution. It would deal with the problem Silent Thunder outlined and it would have a very similar effect to my proposal which is great. If defenders hold the ground for some time it would let them give the opportunity to counter-attack and overcome the enemy sunderer. Why did PS1 game-design related things so much better

Crator · 2013-04-07, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Progressive spawn timers from PS1 are a better solution. If you die fast after spawning it increases the spawn time at your last spawn location by a few seconds. After a while you don't feel like spawning there and move to another spawn location to fight.

Removing AMS would be a bad idea. I do think the ideal solution would be the PS1 respawn timer increase after death. One thing to change from the way PS1 did it though, link the respawn timer increase to specific spawn points. This way, you can spawn somewhere else faster then the spawn point you've been using for a long time. The spawn timer amount you've accumulated on a spawn point would begin to decrease after not using it for x amount of time. If you use it again while still having increased spawn time on the spawn point the decrease in time would stop and start to increase again.

bpostal · 2013-04-07, 10:01 AM

If the AMS is removed, you'd have to remove every class besides Medic.

Ghoest9 · 2013-04-07, 11:23 AM

Yes - lets drive away players and make the game die.

The game will succeed based on the quantity and quality of the combat aspect of the game - all cocepts about flow etc are of minor relative importance.

THIS IS THE MOST IDIOTIC SUGGESTION EVER.

Aaron · 2013-04-07, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Crator

Removing AMS would be a bad idea. I do think the ideal solution would be the PS1 respawn timer increase after death. One thing to change from the way PS1 did it though, link the respawn timer increase to specific spawn points. This way, you can spawn somewhere else faster then the spawn point you've been using for a long time. The spawn timer amount you've accumulated on a spawn point would begin to decrease after not using it for x amount of time. If you use it again while still having increased spawn time on the spawn point the decrease in time would stop and start to increase again.

I like this idea. Removing the AMS isn't applicable, but adding penalties to it would add some depth to gameplay, and some hope for defense. The No-Deploy zones should get a decent chance of being implemented, too.

WSNeo · 2013-04-07, 11:51 AM

Rothnang · 2013-04-07, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by DarkBalths

Yeah, because I really want to have to walk 500 fucking meters every time I die, right?

This pretty much sums up the problem that AMS in its current form creates. "I don't want to be penalized in any way for getting killed."

It renders any transport units pointless, and it renders any kind of deeper tactical approach to taking a base pointless. Of course there shouldn't be a huge lull in the action every time you die, but there needs to be a middle ground there somewhere, where you don't just clowncar a base to death, but actually think a little.

BIGGByran · 2013-04-07, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

No. We already had a phase of the game where there was no AMS; battle flow was improved SIGNIFICANTLY after they added it as an option to the Sunderer. The AMS is absolutely necessary in the game.

I never got a chance to beta PS2 without the AMS, which I could have tasted it for myself and maybe see if there has been change since that time to what PS2 is now and see if it is possible to remove AMS.

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Yes. Blow me.

I didn't know you were gay. I blow you, you blow me. When and where?

Originally Posted by DarkBalths

Yeah, because I really want to have to walk 500 fucking meters every time I die, right? Great idea.
You must play VS, if you actually think this was a good idea. Only the VS are that bad at tactics.

I agree with the 500 meters, but this makes death more painful than just waiting 12 seconds to spawn right underneath the capture point. With an AMS close by, death is meaningless. Without an AMS death has meaning and it means Win or Lose. I been with a squad, dropped behind enemy lines without AMS and me being a Medic. Knowing that if you die, it means the lost of the territory that you are trying to capture. It makes the game more intense, knowing that you can just die and say "oh well, i'll just respawn at the sundy" but instead say "Our lives depend on the capture of this facility."

You might want to get your glasses, look at my signature, if you think I play VS and to say that VS is bad a tactics is ignorance.

The only reason you give as to why you don't like the idea of no AMS is 500 meter. I agree that maybe a bit extreme, but nothing that a few man modifications can fix/adjust. But some bases don't have outpost that far out but some do and may need adjusting.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

I'm not a big fan of the AMS either, but I think it's impossible to get rid of at this point. Unfortunately once you introduce something that's THAT overly convenient everyone is going to defend it beyond all reason.

Just the mere idea of giving Sunderers a standoff distance from a base is the most downvoted thing on the Roadmap, which pretty much shows that people will take a dumbed down easy meatgrinder over an actual battle that requires tactics and oppose anything that would make for deeper gameplay if it doesn't feed into their quick and easy cert farming strategies.

At any rate, respawning should be tweaked. I hate infantry combat in this game because it's such a meatgrinder and everyone plays to optimize their cert gain, never to optimize their own survival.

I agree, people are use to the AMS and the convenients of it and they don't want it removed. Maybe I would be the same if I had a chance to experience it, but I can't say for sure as I have not yet.

Agreed again, respawning should be tweaked maybe instead of removing AMS. I can see the removal of AMS in small squad to 1 platoon vs 1 Platoon Vs 1 Platoon battle being OK but in a scale of hundreds I can see where it becomes nessacery to have AMS, but at that point it does just becomes another meatgrinder session.

Originally Posted by Vashyo

Definately don't want AMS to be removed, it's a very tactical part of the game since u can affect where ur faction will come from and it saves time.

Though! I think we do need SOI back, u should not be able to put ur AMS inside enemy base, its prolly the biggest issue we have about base defendability. Hard to defend when ur enemy gets to the target near instantly why u have to run over a wide open space and risk dying.

Anything can be a tactical part of the game, and sometimes removing something can make it even more tactical.

They did do something about the running over a wide open space, and it did help a bit. Maybe I gotten use to it that it still feels the same as it did before they added it, spawn camping. Now that I think about the spawn camping, it is a very difficult problem to resolve and this maybe the best it can get. Altho I do like the idea of no AMS inside the base, however it should apply to all. Also the area of no AMS may need to be large as most large base facilities aren't fought often at the walls, but instead in the court yard.

Rothnang · 2013-04-07, 09:08 PM

Galaxy AMS used to be a thing in Beta, and it was removed because people found that it dumbed down the game a lot because you could just plunk down an AMS anywhere without regard for terrain ans start spawning people. They replaced it with the Sunderer, and for a while things were pretty good, but then they made three giant mistakes:

1. They made Sunderers available at every single terminal.
2. They made Sunderers cost tank resource.
3. They made the XP for deploying Sunderers minimal because people were massive dicks about it.

The combination of those two basically removed all meaningful constraints from Sunderers when it comes to infantry zerging. You can pull them anywhere including any hacked terminal, so getting them to the enemy base isn't really much of an undertaking, it's often a 1 minute drive at best and replacing a destroyed Sunderer is hardly a challenge. They also get parked inside of the bases frequently where enemy vehicles can't get to them.

The fact that they cost tank resources now instead of infantry resource as they originally did also basically created a situation where anyone who mostly plays infantry pretty much always has the resources to pull a Sunderer just lying around doing nothing. It's just not like there are dedicated Sunderer players in any meaningful capacity, it's just a vehicle that anyone who plays infantry can grab anywhere without missing out on any other infantry related purchases. Essentially there is no real investment in pulling a Sunderer if you're an infantry player, because you're spending resources you don't care about, and the timer doesn't really interest you because if someone else pulls a Sunderer while yours is on cooldown the functionality is the same for you.

Some people were such huge dicks about the way Sunderers were being used that the devs had to nerf the ammount of XP you get for spawning people, because when that was still lucrative and people actually had a vested interest in having their own Sunderer doing the spawning they resorted to massive teamkilling. Before exclusion zones went in you had "Sunderer Boccia" with people trying to get their own Sunderer closest to the base to get the respawns, even if their deploy location was horrible or they just beat the other sunderer by an extra inch.
The problem is, by removing the incentive to have your own Sunderer do the spawning they further solidified this idea that everyone who plays infantry just takes turns spawning Sunderers.

Basically between the three of those factors you end up with Sunderers that are spawned in massive quantities, at no real cost to the people who use them, pretty much anywhere on the map, and without a lasting intention to hold on to them. It's basically the perfect storm for vehicle spam. A vehicle that costs a resource you don't care about, is available everywhere, and that does the job you want it to do completely regardless of whether it's yours or someone elses.

IMO what the best solution would be for Sunderers: Remove the deploy exclusion zone. Add a deploy exclusion to bases so you have to spawn a few hundred meters outside of them. Make it so Sunderers are squad spawn only, so that a large army needs a multitude of Sunderers that only service up to 12 players each. Make Sunderers spawn from Lighting+ terminals instead of every single one. This would solve a lot of the problems with the only downside being that lone wolves will have to join open squads to get their mobile spawning, but I don't even know if that's a downside.

BIGGByran · 2013-04-07, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by DhrRob

Do it! I'd enjoy a good laugh and seeing the AMS getting back the same day.

Well atleast you would have a good laugh.

Originally Posted by Selerox

It's been a while since I've read a worse idea on a PS2 forum.
So you can imagine that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

People prefer conveniences over tactics. CoD players certainly do. This is to say that AMS at the momemt is pretty convenient.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Precisely this. No deploy zones were brought up with a lot of complaints. I noticed most of the people against them were simply saying that the bases need to be designed so you can't get a Sunderer into them, but honestly that's not a viable solution for all bases or outposts.

Allowing the Sunderer to get within base walls and within defenses really hurt gameplay I believe. I mean I've driven and taken bases simply by putting my Sunderer right next to the capture point which is so defensible because the enemy's spawn point is outside of the outpost essentially. That just makes for horrible gameplay for defenders when they spawn and are essentially attacking on the offense rather than defense.

Agreed, No deploy zone would be the best options as someone may find a way around terrain and get a sundy in a "no sundy zone." Or may by pass if we can load a sundy in a Loadstar.

Originally Posted by Ruffdog

I dont think so. Fighting would be too frustrating. Servers would empty.
I would increase spawn time on AMS though. Hardpoint facilities should never cycle dead people slower than a mobile, convenient unit.

Agreed, I can see where it can be frustrating and I'm sure this game has plenty of that. But this frustration shouldn't be in line with glitches and such, but more along the lines of team play and such. Ex. Frustration not being able to take over a base because the defenders are playing better than your team Vs. Frustrations because you get the damage glitch or your vehicle gets flipped for no reason or because of server lag or getting killed when your in cover because of lag.
Agreed. Base spawn should be faster and convenient AMS should be slower.

Originally Posted by ringring

No thanks.

Fights would be better if:
1. AMSES had invisibility bubble
2. The deploy restriction circle created by a deployed AMS was smaller
3. Bases and outpoasts were more desfensible

Fights are over too quickly. Either the spawns are camped or an attacking AMS is destroyed and once that goes there is rarely a back up option.

Relate this to PS1. Bases much more defensible and you could get 3 AMSES within the courtyard and close to the action.

You kinda support my "No AMS" a bit by saying "Fights are over too quickly." and you right, the reason they are over so quickly is because of AMS. AMS being deployed right under the capture points, you kill an attacker and they spawn right where you don't want them at, your capture point. And then you have to fight him again because he respawn right where you need to be.

The 2 of the 3 points you give, gives the attackers the advantage. Invisible AMS and able to deploy more sundies at the defender's base.

If we remove the reliability of the AMS (or modify it in someway) it should promote more team play, because going in alone is certain death while going in as a team will increase your survivability.

Originally Posted by Nathaniak

Keep the AMS, but remove the Sunderer from the Flash terminals.

This will help some, it would be nice to test out to see how it feels.

Originally Posted by Silent Thunder

Thirded. I remember when you used to have to pull them from the same terminals that you got Lightnings from, and the battle flow was much, much better, since you actually had to defend the AMS on the trip over.

Worth looking into.

Originally Posted by Ssential

Removing them is too drastic.
But, in my opinion, a lone sunderer shouldn't be able to upkeep 100+ guys that constantly spawn. I don't think this is good for gameplay. A sunderer should have something like an energy pool that is being depleted when people spawn. It would recharge automatically but not fast enough to let so many guys spawn constantly. Obviously you would need to know before spawning how much energy a sunderer has left. This would create the need of more than just one deployed sunderer to maintain the offensive, nerfing them a bit but making the whole process more tactical.

How about change Sundies to only allow X number of friendlies to deploy, but unlimited number of Squad/Platoon members? Would be an interesting change and wouldn't hurt too much.

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

i prefer this than removing them .

Might be a better choice. Can't wait to try it out.

Originally Posted by Ssential

This seems to be a much better solution. It would deal with the problem Silent Thunder outlined and it would have a very similar effect to my proposal which is great. If defenders hold the ground for some time it would let them give the opportunity to counter-attack and overcome the enemy sunderer. Why did PS1 game-design related things so much better

CoD players maybe? Wanting more meatgrinder sessions.

Originally Posted by bpostal

If the AMS is removed, you'd have to remove every class besides Medic.

You are quite right on this and I have said something about this and did think about it. I said something along the line of making other classes important in base assault. Ex. making engineers/infil(maybe even adding the LA, so not to make the class completely useless in terms of base assault) being the only class that can Overload a Gen. But this hasn't been worked out fully and will need major work.

Figment · 2013-04-07, 09:32 PM

Cert system.

Base layout.

Four words in need of massive ps1esque overhaul beat everything else one can say.

Besides, you can't remove what doesn't exist.