Deployed Galaxy Spawning - Page 3

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.

megamold · 2012-03-14, 06:07 PM

i think they just removed the AMS because they want to keep players from placing one 50meters from a backdoor for ex.

having the gal take that function would mean you need to put it further away, like behind the nearest ridge line.
and because its not gonna be close to the base, you can give it powerfull defenses.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-14, 06:18 PM

I just hope AA weapons are actually effective at getting kills and not a repellent like they were in PS1.

As for Gals, everything depends on the driver and engineer. The hardest part about effective AMS deployment was the right amount of aggression vs survivability. An aggressive deployment inside an enemy courtyard is going to result in a 30sec lifespan. However, it will deliver zerg into the heart of the base causing mayhem and disruption for those 30 seconds.

Parking it behind cover, hills, trees etc will effectively screen it from one form of attack or another and you hope that its guns are correctly configured for the remaining attack types. Also, the zerglings spewing out of it should help too. Gal will last longer, but footslogging into the base will set up kill zones and won't put enough pressure on the enemy.

I hate myself for saying this, but we're just going to have to wait for beta.

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.

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 · 2012-03-14, 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.

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.

Tachyr · 2012-04-11, 10:17 AM

Main problem with having to man the turrets to defend the galaxy is that if there is no air activity gunners will get bored and move out.
All that is needed is a cloaker spotting when this happens and call in air cav to take it out.

I still argue that the Galaxy as a fat mans AMS is a bad decision and either go with the DSU idea or implement the old AMS cloaked concept.

It's a loose loose situation. If the Galaxy is to easy to kill the pilots will be frustrated and less prone to pull new ones.
If the deployed galaxies are to hard to kill then the defending force will cry foul as it is easy to swamp an area with Galaxies and deploy them.

Cloaking adds a much better tactical option and much easier to balance. That is why the original AMS idea worked so well in PS.