Deployed Galaxy Spawning - Page 3

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 06:30 PM

Good to see input from players who can break away from thinking of it like PS1. If customizable, as it should be, chosing the right weapons to defend it will matter. Imagine something gets on your tail and you rip it up in 2 seconds. Also, I would expect a need for players to help defend it. Why do people think they deserve to spawn some super-structure that will last indefinately and keep points flowing in for them? Others will be spawning them too. Supply and demand. You need to always keep the AMS's coming.

Also, as for how you equip the Gal, or any vehicle. I imagine that you will basically be able to create all the combinations of vehicles we know out of the base models. Hell, the ability to be a spawn point in it's self may be something you have to swap out for say, the ability to add weaponry that would make it like a gunship.

So much is possible, I just don't understand why so much whining has to be done at this point. Open your minds to all the possibilities.

Kipper · 2012-03-14, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Bonius

It looks like the gal will be made into a forward base and not a courtyard spawnpoint.

Which I wholeheartedly agree with. You shouldn't be able to just pour unlimited troops straight into an enemy base.

Landing your gal within range of base turrets/defenders SHOULD be suicide, forcing attackers to cross open ground, which in turn should bring ground vehicles into base captures as they'll need to hold the outside, and multiple galaxies to provide pressure from more than one direction.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Kipper

Which I wholeheartedly agree with. You shouldn't be able to just pour unlimited troops straight into an enemy base.

Landing your gal within range of base turrets/defenders SHOULD be suicide, forcing attackers to cross open ground, which in turn should bring ground vehicles into base captures as they'll need to hold the outside, and multiple galaxies to provide pressure from more than one direction.

Spawn control and the distance from spawn to conflict is EVERYTHING in Planetside. Not being able to set up a spawn really close to a base or in the CY would make the base almost untakable. What I would hope to see is captuarable buildings on the base, like barracks, where you could code them and gain a sapwn there.

Bonius · 2012-03-14, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

What I would hope to see is captuarable buildings on the base, like barracks, where you could code them and gain a sapwn there.

Wich is exactly what is already implemented in the game (as discussed on GDC coverage)

Sardus · 2012-03-14, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Spawn control and the distance from spawn to conflict is EVERYTHING in Planetside. Not being able to set up a spawn really close to a base or in the CY would make the base almost untakable. What I would hope to see is captuarable buildings on the base, like barracks, where you could code them and gain a sapwn there.

Yep I agree, everything in PS1 and hopefully PS2 is a "resource". If the AMSs stop flowing, you lose. And the more AMSs, or in this case (Galaxies) that you have flowing, the closer you can place them to the base. Risk vs reward.

DaSwede · 2012-03-14, 08:03 PM

I would much rather have an option to detach the passenger compartment once the Galaxy is landed and have it cloak without guns and ability to move.

This could be an option if the pilot/squad leader is certed for it. This would allow for a much more stealth approach for spec ops but still using the same mechanic i.e. Galaxies to transport troops.

This would also open up other options of what a Galaxy can detach on the ground for the troops.

Removing the cloaking and stealth of spec ops will never work as it is just a matter of "spot the fat bird on the ground" and take it out and all support is cut of for the squad/platoon trying to break a stale mate etc.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-14, 10:08 PM

I never thought of that - I'm not a stealth player - but you're totally right!

How are stealthers supposed to do their thing without a cloaked AMS?

SL spawn means drop pods. That's almost as obvious as a GAL in the first place.

Maybe they're going to have a cloak bubble available on the deployed GAL as the ultimate upgrade.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by DaSwede

I would much rather have an option to detach the passenger compartment once the Galaxy is landed and have it cloak without guns and ability to move.

This could be an option if the pilot/squad leader is certed for it. This would allow for a much more stealth approach for spec ops but still using the same mechanic i.e. Galaxies to transport troops.

This would also open up other options of what a Galaxy can detach on the ground for the troops.

Removing the cloaking and stealth of spec ops will never work as it is just a matter of "spot the fat bird on the ground" and take it out and all support is cut of for the squad/platoon trying to break a stale mate etc.

I had actually suggested this before. The Galaxy would land, not drop - too easy - and deploy a "DSU (Deployable Spawn Unit), and then could fly off to either attempt to protect it, or come back and take loads of troops from the unit over and over.

**EDIT** I just dug it up from January, gonna post it.

MrBloodworth · 2012-03-15, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

And why is that? If they actually make undeploying and flying away so fast that you would have time to escape a PS1 like OS, something is IMO a bit wrong.

Or are you still thinking that a Gal will be able to fly in the sky while spawning friendlies?

Gone as in:

Retrograde · 2012-04-11, 01:32 AM

I played ps1 and was almost a dedicated galaxy pilot (sad, but true). I have a couple of thoughts on the change.

First, my recollection from many years ago:

Hot drops were the most fun in the game, to me. However, Galaxies did not survive a hot drop over a tower most of the time. But that did not matter, because people could spawn at the AMS.

This change will make a galaxy more important. That's obvious.

Without a deployed galaxy near the base, the unit will not be able to spawn nearby. Ergo, don't lose the galaxy, ever.

My concern is that it will be too risky to lose the spawn point versus a hot drop mission.

Why take the risk and hot drop and probably lose the spawn point?

Seems like it should be a configuration option. Spawn point or armored drop ship. Pick one.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-04-11, 08:32 AM

Just throw MOAR GALS! at the problem.

Bring 5 and park 2 close, 2 not so close. the last one just does drops and pickups over and over again.

Bring 50 and deploy them as a forward operations post with all the guns covering the other gals. That'll only cost about 200 population for gunners.

Your post makes me think that there's only one gal pilot per faction.

Stardouser · 2012-04-11, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

Just throw MOAR GALS! at the problem.

Bring 5 and park 2 close, 2 not so close. the last one just does drops and pickups over and over again.

Bring 50 and deploy them as a forward operations post with all the guns covering the other gals. That'll only cost about 200 population for gunners.

Your post makes me think that there's only one gal pilot per faction.

That's not a bad idea. Instead of attacking something to capture it, just surround it with forward base deployments, to entice the enemy to heavily defend against you, so you can actually attack somewhere else.

Can Galaxy turrets hurt tanks? If not, they will bust out and bust the Galaxies...

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-04-11, 08:47 AM

I think the current buzz is Gal turrets can become swappable with enough certs. so maybe an AA on top and alternate AI and AV around the sides.

It also ties in nicely with Evilpig's idea for vehicle built FOBs, tweaked by engies. Which I like because it is similar to what happens IRL.

Shogun · 2012-04-11, 09:17 AM

simple solution to the OS problem...

there is only one orbital strike sat in orbit. and after it has been used, it has to reload for some minutes. so whenever someone uses the OS it will start a cooldown for everybody (or at least everybody of the same faction)

make the galaxy lose 90% of its health from an OS, so there has to be some softening up before the OS can kill the gal. the simple osok OS in ps1 was fine as long as it was a very rare occurance. but when everybody got it, it was pure annoyance.

Figment · 2012-04-11, 09:27 AM

The mass Galaxy idea is a very niche, ZERG, solution.

It's not extremely practical and ties a lot of troops down. It's nowhere near suited for small, flexible groups, which at least 40% of PS1 players played as on a regular basis.