Remove Sundy AMS

[Maidere]

Each sundy should have a spawn limit that can be "resupplied" on the vehicle ammo stations. Also platoon-locked sundy's wont be able to spawn random crowd.
Gravezerging must go.

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Maidere

Each sundy should have a spawn limit that can be "resupplied" on the vehicle ammo stations. Also platoon-locked sundy's wont be able to spawn random crowd.
Gravezerging must go.

That could work too.

Maybe make it so you can only pull a Sunderer if you're part of a platoon? Of course, you'd have to fix it so you have at least a full squad to be able to start a platoon?

[Crator]

So I'm confused, what exactly are we trying to fix? AMS spam?

It just sounds like limiting amount of spawns based on resources could be a logistical nightmare. Which in turn would reduce infantry fighting even more. IDK about you guys but I want more infantry fighting. Not less.

[Ghoest9]

@ OP

No. Bad idea.

Sundy placement and defense if one of the more fun parts of PS2.
They are actually really easy to kill if defenders have a slight amount of organization.

[Rothnang]

I would like it if there was some kind of top shelf infantry that you can't pull from a Sunderer so that there would be more of an incentive to use transport units. Right now it feels like dropping guys with a Galaxy is kind of pointless because all infantry is designed to die and respawn, so it's just not like you can drop your badass commandos somewhere and expect them to be very effective without a spawn point nearby.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Crator

So I'm confused, what exactly are we trying to fix? AMS spam?

It just sounds like limiting amount of spawns based on resources could be a logistical nightmare. Which in turn would reduce infantry fighting even more. IDK about you guys but I want more infantry fighting. Not less.

The OP thinks sundy-AMS in general would have to be removed.


I don't think they have any idea what they're suggesting at this point.

Platoon/squad spawning on an AMS with interference radius or by ignoring interference radius (which was suggested elsewhere), is not a good idea. First of all, it would mean the interference radius would be removed. Second, it would mean you'd have an AMS for each individual squad or platoon, meaning opposed to having one, two or three to deal with now, we're already talking over a dozen or a dozen and a half for a group of 200 players.

You should keep in mind there's simply no room for that amount of AMSes in the terrain. Squads and platoons would start fighting for the best spots and blow each other's AMSes up at times (doesn't get you much grief since you only have to drop two things or one a person on a vehicles). Even though it wouldn't happen that much, this behaviour would be stimulated. Especially as small squads would start getting in the way of biger squads by their AMS placement. So that's unwanted friction between allies: they're not cooperating anymore, they're competing within the same empire.

Also, simply because it would start to require dozens of AMSes in the same area, which as we saw earlier - despite of not the entire zerg spawning at each - leads to a diffusion of defense targets: defenders won't know which AMS to prioritise, they will need so many missiles, mines and C4 to blow them all out of the water, it's not going to work. Defenders didn't have enough targets already? Plus, if you bring a number of extra AMSes and switch to those after one dies, nothing changes. We already bring backups now and in Tech Test we sometimes saw groups of five repair/AMS sundies, so that's quite likely.

On top of that, placing the one Sunderer that changes the tide would stop being the case. Both for offense and defense. This reduces the satisfaction.

On top of that, defense around Sunderers would water down, since less people spawn at these.


So simply put, it wouldn't solve the problem in question. It'd only change it. A squad only AMS would be nice as an addition for spec ops teams, but they'd have to have different rules from the standard AMS and be very careful with this sort of thing, because it can end up very disruptive to flow if done wrong.




Limiting the amount of times one can spawn somewhere is not a good idea either, because it would hurt both offense and defense alike, but especially defense as you cannot replenish your AMSes due to auto-drive + shield camp alone (if you can get one out at all). Meanwhile the attacker can get new ones more easily from surrounding outposts, warpgate and hacked terminals. The one way flow would strengthen. Plus, you don't know how long an engagement lasts, so you may well be ending fights arbitrarily, just as they are getting good.

It's true the attacker wouldn't be able to keep up a consistent flow, which might seem to be in favour of the defender. But does that mean it is easier to defend, or that attackers would simply bring more spares and replacements when one is almost out of tickets?

And how many tickets are we talking about? How many spawns a minute are currently needed?

Limiting by tickets would have quite a few consequences in the psychology of the fight. It could lead to more hanging back because a death is more vital, which means less people dare to push and the fight becomes more stale than dynamic. Can have positive effects, can simply make it boring. Would it after all, not encourage AMS camping and camping in general more without trying to push in but waiting for others to get out? Especially defenders in the current base setup are constantly forced through crossfires and outnumbered and ducks in a barrel, so they'd run out of tickets much faster. It could well mean outer perimeters of outposts fall even sooner than they do now.

Basically you get miniature randomised tickets per group instances within the overarching battle on top of group size imbalances, instead of a consistent battle, which probably hurts the group that has a numerical, logistical and reinforcement disadvantage most (which in PS2, is the defender, especially if it's a smaller group).

Is that the type of gameplay solution we're looking for? I don't think so.




On the other hand, we could solve everything by simply restricting the amount of players with access to the AMS in the first place by having players select which vehicles are available to them and making the logistics of switching characters unappealing for quick switches between characters (whether on the same or other account - shouldn't matter).


Why make convoluted ideas that probably won't work, when a proven to work solution is right there in front of us?

[OCNSethy]

Originally Posted by Figment

Why make convoluted ideas that probably won't work, when a proven to work solution is right there in front of us?

What is this proven solution you speak of? I cant seem to follow this thread with all it's tit for tat posts

[Figment]

Originally Posted by OCNSethy

What is this proven solution you speak of? I cant seem to follow this thread with all it's tit for tat posts

Certification limits.

[OCNSethy]

Originally Posted by Figment

Certification limits.

Ahhh,,, thanks

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Figment

Certification limits.

Yeah, but with how few vehicle choices there are IDK why SOE would limit their use. Especially when there are things in the cash shop that can be used to spend on each different vehicle. I understand it would help tremendously with this issue, I just don't see this fix becoming reality due to the F2P system.

[Figment]

I don't see the issue with the cash shop.

Do you spend station cash on all the vehicles, or just the one(s) you really have a connection with?

Besides, since those purchases will be account wide, they'd count for alternate characters. In fact, it could make alternate characters far more appealing and thus cause significantly more reason for more cosmetics to be sold and apply to various characters for very distinct looks. Currently there is no incentive to make more than one character due to the way certs are unlocked.

So I don't really see the problem there: you could get a lot of pilot related goods on your account for a pilot type character, a lot of sundy goods for pimpbustruckdriver, etc.

That shouldn't affect sales.




In fact, it could make certification grouping between rifle types more appealing. You buy them for your account now, but if you were to have to make choices between carbines and SMGs for instance on a character next to vehicles, suits and support specializations, this could actually stimulate sales, because you'd purchase different weapons for different characters who certed into different groups linked to their unit type.

I mean, you wouldn't buy a gun for a character, but for all characters on the account. Then you simply select which gun groups your individual characters have access too and your purchased guns will be available to only certain characters, still all characters you want access to those weapons on. It would simply cost you some other certs.



I've proposed this other thing in relation to that before:

You could see unlocking certs as we do now as "researching". Researching something means it becomes available as an option (much like you now select one of the options), but then actually have up to a maximum amount of skillpoints to spend on the amount of options you can use on a character. So a double layer of certification.

Research could be shared by all characters, while skillpoints would be individual per character and for instance directly related to BattleRank.

[AThreatToYou]

Remove S-AMS ----> VehicleSide 2 is finalized.
Remove S-AMS & add proper AMS ----> Unit has more clearly defined role

[Rockit]

I am trying to figure out what the issue is here? You guys don't want AMS at all or no radius exclusion? This shouldn't require some high brow discussion, just bake it down someone please?

[Palerion]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

@ OP

No. Bad idea.

Sundy placement and defense if one of the more fun parts of PS2.
They are actually really easy to kill if defenders have a slight amount of organization.

/agree.

We need a little bit of consistent combat, which AMS provides. Two minutes of flying to a base to die within a minute would SUCK.

And some deaths just aren't avoidable.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Figment

I don't see the issue with the cash shop.

Do you spend station cash on all the vehicles, or just the one(s) you really have a connection with?

So I don't really see the problem there: you could get a lot of pilot related goods on your account for a pilot type character, a lot of sundy goods for pimpbustruckdriver, etc.

That shouldn't affect sales.

It's the only reason I can see why they chose to have hardly anything related to BR progression. I just can't see why they would forfeit good game play restrictions like these unless they wanted to try to monetize using this progression model. Almost everything can be related to cash purchases, even gaining cert points quicker which allow access to every progression item in the game, other then more loadouts which are related to BR and you only get 3 max per character.