Deployed Galaxy Spawning

Kipper · 2012-03-14, 10:27 AM

Here's a random thought that just came to mind following reading something in a different thread.

If you land and deploy your galaxy as an empire spawn and resupply point (presumably its empire, and not outfit/squad locked) - is it now an infinately usable spawn point until you 'undeploy' (or someone undeploys you forcibly with C4).

Or will the galaxy have to load up with these mythical "resources" we hear so much about and each spawn will cost resource, eventually leading to it needing to go and resupply, or be resupplied, or replaced.

I quite like the idea of it being non-infinite - supply line wise, that means you have to keep rotating your spawns to keep one active near a battle, and 'managing' it to ensure your troops are in the best shape. It also opens up opportunities for resupplying the deployed galaxy from other vehicles; effectively making it a mini-base.

Figment · 2012-03-14, 12:18 PM

Keeping up a Galaxy spawnpoint will be hard enough seeing as it is not passively defendable.

Adding further constraints to it will be silly.

Whalenator · 2012-03-14, 12:19 PM

Resources seem a bother. If they want to slow down gameplay they should shoot directly for the gun game, which atm seems very BF3-ish.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 12:56 PM

Don't need resources, don't even need a proximity limit as the AMS has. Killing a Galaxy will not be hard if equipped to do so.

Figment · 2012-03-14, 01:00 PM

There will be an interference radius though. Tbh, I think that's a good idea, doesn't have to be as big as the AMS one was, given as the Gal will be fastly more fragile.

MrBloodworth · 2012-03-14, 01:27 PM

Galaxy as an AMS is about as sensible as putting the spawn tubes in the middle of a field with giant arrows next to it.

Galaxy's where the first target any time they entered any air space. Its not hard to hit a flying barn, even less hard to see one...over there.

I have no idea why the AMs was removed. If they feel it was "boring" (debatable) then it should be improved. Not removed.

Coreldan · 2012-03-14, 01:36 PM

I have to say that I'm not quite sure either why AMS had to go and replace with Galaxy being the new equivalent with no cloak.

However, I've accepted that and I rather spend my resources and times trying to come up how to make the Galaxy idea viable.

1) OSs have been confirmed to be in, they are probably a major problem for Galaxys cos they can been. It's however very easy to make Galaxy resistant to OS damage so that it's not the primary way of taking a Galaxy down

2) It's been mentioned they want the Galaxy to actually be defended by real players. That said, they could easily make the mannable turrets like the wall turrets in PS1, so that they have some lazy AI to them that might be enough to keep some single enemy aircraft from destroying it all alone.

3) They can make a deployed gal extremely tough even if it would be weak in air or when undeployed. Since it wont be cloaking, the easiest way is probably with a strong shield (much like the one players have) that only activates when the Galaxy is deployed. Then it's just a matter of finetuning stats so that it takes fairly much firepower to bring a deployed Galaxy down, but still so that it's possible.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I have to say that I'm not quite sure either why AMS had to go and replace with Galaxy being the new equivalent with no cloak.

However, I've accepted that and I rather spend my resources and times trying to come up how to make the Galaxy idea viable.

1) OSs have been confirmed to be in, they are probably a major problem for Galaxys cos they can been. It's however very easy to make Galaxy resistant to OS damage so that it's not the primary way of taking a Galaxy down

OS's won't be in at launch and won't be a command function. Most likely an outfit function that will cost resources.

2) It's been mentioned they want the Galaxy to actually be defended by real players. That said, they could easily make the mannable turrets like the wall turrets in PS1, so that they have some lazy AI to them that might be enough to keep some single enemy aircraft from destroying it all alone.

This is how it should be. Don't forget that game mechanics are completely different and such extra measures may be over the top. Properly equipped units will do their job well.

3) They can make a deployed gal extremely tough even if it would be weak in air or when undeployed. Since it wont be cloaking, the easiest way is probably with a strong shield (much like the one players have) that only activates when the Galaxy is deployed. Then it's just a matter of finetuning stats so that it takes fairly much firepower to bring a deployed Galaxy down, but still so that it's possible.

As I always said about AMS's, there is no reason they DESERVE to live long. Protect them. They should not be guaranteed a long lifespan and frankly, making them OS resistant is just ridiculous.

Coreldan · 2012-03-14, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

making them OS resistant is just ridiculous.

Well, depends. The thing is that you can't protect it from an OS if it's anywhere near to what it was in PS1. Even if it's not a command function or that it requires resources, if it's still more or less "point and click on a map" and will one shot Galaxy, that really is ridicilous too.

The reason AMSs were at least somewhat AMS resistant was they took some effort to find their exact location cos of the cloak. Now we have an aircraft that 1) has to fly to the scene, already making a big ass "OK, AMS COMING" warning to the enemy 2) is much bigger than the AMS from PS1 3) can't hide itself even the little the cloak bubble did.

I didnt spot that they said OS wont be in at launch, I've only spotted they said they will return. But if the mechanics are in any way similar, one shotting a deployed Gal will not be too fun except if the OS are extremely rare and can't be spammed, but how are you gonna make an OS that can't be used by the same empire many times in a row? Who gets to be the one to use it?

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Well, depends. The thing is that you can't protect it from an OS if it's anywhere near to what it was in PS1. Even if it's not a command function or that it requires resources, if it's still more or less "point and click on a map" and will one shot Galaxy, that really is ridicilous too.

The reason AMSs were at least somewhat AMS resistant was they took some effort to find their exact location cos of the cloak. Now we have an aircraft that 1) has to fly to the scene, already making a big ass "OK, AMS COMING" warning to the enemy 2) is much bigger than the AMS from PS1 3) can't hide itself even the little the cloak bubble did.

I didnt spot that they said OS wont be in at launch, I've only spotted they said they will return. But if the mechanics are in any way similar, one shotting a deployed Gal will not be too fun except if the OS are extremely rare and can't be spammed, but how are you gonna make an OS that can't be used by the same empire many times in a row? Who gets to be the one to use it?

The OS will not be in at launch (planned). The current idea amongst the Devs is to make it an outfit function. Making it cost resources makes it not "spammable". AMS were easy to find due to it only taking minor intelligence to scout in the direction that troops were coming from. You do not really know if it will be easier or harder to hide a Gal because the terrain is totally different. Either way, aerial scouting should do the job.

Depending on the speed of the deployment function, Gals may be able to run away with ease. They will at least be able to relocate faster. As I have always stated though, just as with the AMS, there is no reason that this unit deserves to live forever (utter exaggeration). You usually get this feeling of entitlement from AMS drivers who simply don't want their XP fountains to expire.

And for what it's worth, I loved the AMS. The AMS was the most powerful vehicle in Planetside and I would love to see their return. However, I will need to see this in Beta before I really judge. The AMS may have not made the cut because the continents are soo vast and Anti-Vehicle loadouts will be so strong.

Coreldan · 2012-03-14, 02:10 PM

Fair points.

But about it beign an outfit function that requires resources, it still doesnt change the fact that there could basically be a few dozen outfits around there. That would also mean a few dozen OSs?

But yea, too early to say much at this point. Depending how the resources work it will also have a huge effect on how OSs will be used.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Fair points.

But about it beign an outfit function that requires resources, it still doesnt change the fact that there could basically be a few dozen outfits around there. That would also mean a few dozen OSs?

But yea, too early to say much at this point. Depending how the resources work it will also have a huge effect on how OSs will be used.

It could. The question is, how many times could it be done and just as with PS1, even with soo many CR5s, it still does not compare to the rate at which players can simply deploy more AMS. It being an aircraft now means that it can reach the front faster (presumably) and therefore more players will likely be willing to do it.

Kipper · 2012-03-14, 02:23 PM

It has been said that the Galaxy will have capable defenses when its deployed, provided someone is there to actually man them.

Being a mobile base - and therefore a strategically important target for counter-attackers wanting to relieve the pressure on their fixed base coming from people spawning, you would expect it to come under all kinds of attack from whatever people can get their hands on.

If it has people and guns, and an engineer manning it - then it will hold itself against most vehicles and it will take a co-ordinated assault to take it out (in which the one empire risks losing the nearby base while it concentrates on taking down the gal-spawn, but the other empire risks losing its gal-spawn if it doesnt leave enough people back to keep it alive - so it will be about allocation of resources)

OS is a worry though. If it can one-shot a galaxy, then it will, and that will be frankly rubbish because you won't be able to keep a mobile spawn up for any length of time. If it can't, then fine, an OS could legitimately form part of an attack, but not the whole of it.

Problem is how many OS can an empire do in what amount of time, if its possible that two or three can go off quickly then that will become the de-facto tactic for taking them down without a fight and won't be fun for the defender.

Provided an OS isn't an insta-kill, and there's enough time between OS strikes for a full repair by two or three engineers, it should actually mean taking a galaxy down will involve an actual fight.

Forsaken One · 2012-03-14, 02:28 PM

We shouldn't punish support players for supporting.

Having it cost resources to spawn is like making a Tanker pay resources every time it fires its gun.

I fully support Supporters getting more freebies then Killers.

Smoke nades should be free (Jammers and other "non kill/hurt" nades as well )

Engies buildables should be free. (or at least be able to become free useing the cert tree.)

Gal in a "spawner custom style" should be also free to a player certed in supporting.

You can drop ammo boxs and stuff and get ammo for free to kill people with. It wouldn't be fair to give the support people the shaft by forcing their support stuff to cost resources.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kipper

It has been said that the Galaxy will have capable defenses when its deployed, provided someone is there to actually man them.

Being a mobile base - and therefore a strategically important target for counter-attackers wanting to relieve the pressure on their fixed base coming from people spawning, you would expect it to come under all kinds of attack from whatever people can get their hands on.

If it has people and guns, and an engineer manning it - then it will hold itself against most vehicles and it will take a co-ordinated assault to take it out (in which the one empire risks losing the nearby base while it concentrates on taking down the gal-spawn, but the other empire risks losing its gal-spawn if it doesnt leave enough people back to keep it alive - so it will be about allocation of resources)

OS is a worry though. If it can one-shot a galaxy, then it will, and that will be frankly rubbish because you won't be able to keep a mobile spawn up for any length of time. If it can't, then fine, an OS could legitimately form part of an attack, but not the whole of it.

Problem is how many OS can an empire do in what amount of time, if its possible that two or three can go off quickly then that will become the de-facto tactic for taking them down without a fight and won't be fun for the defender.

Provided an OS isn't an insta-kill, and there's enough time between OS strikes for a full repair by two or three engineers, it should actually mean taking a galaxy down will involve an actual fight.

The other side of the argument is that just as the AMS, the Galaxy will be the most powerful vehicle in the game. So, why shouldn't the OS be able to take one out? Will the OS take more resources than an AMS? I would think so. Just because you set it up doesn't mean it deserves to be there forever. In fact, though I like the idea of no OS, the OS's primary purpose would be to take out the Galaxy spawn point. It can't take out a base. A base is so vast the OS would not even dent it's defenses.

It's all in the checks and balances.