| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
| Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Rating: 
|
Display Modes |
2012-06-23, 07:37 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||
|
Lieutenant General
|
EDIT: Mk.3 design suggestion added to Page 2 of this thread: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...877#post774877
EDIT 2:  Click on image for larger version! _________________________________ Alright, so we had the whole discussion "do we need one or can we stick with the Gal" which usualy ends in bickering and waiting for PS2. That's not what this is about. This is about design lessons learned from PS1. IF an AMS is implemented in game, what I want to talk about is AMS design. What can we learn from the previous AMS designs (there were two versions) and what needs to be improved for a game like PS2? Note, some of these lessons might be useful for the Galaxy spawnpoint design as well. THE AMS MK.1 The Advanced Mobile Spawnpoint Mk.1 was the original version of the AMS. It is actually one of the most reworked vehicles of the live game!  The AMS Mk.1 was quite different from the Mk.2, to refresh your memories and go through the history of PS AMS design, here's how it was used:  The Mk.1 had one equipment terminal located at the back and two deconstruction tubes on the side. In order for it to deploy, the player would have to stop the vehicle, get out and make it deploy by pressing a button installed on the front of the vehicle. This design lead to the discovery of a number of problems. Due to having to get out the Mk.1 created the first two problems: 1. Deployment vulnerability issues An AMS that is uncloaked is a defenseless target. As long as the AMS is visible, it will be a prime target for everything out there. The time required between stopping and deploying was around 3-4 seconds. It turns out this is a long period of time for a random aircraft to spot you. Once spotted, everyone else on that empire knows your approximate location and will home in on it before it becomes a strongpoint. Can't people defend it? No, because the moment you set up, people haven't spawned yet, meaning you typically don't have a defensive ring of troops around your location yet and the driver's first job after deploying is after all, setting up protection: minefields etc. On top of that, getting out to deploy often meant the driver was shot before he could deploy his spawnpoint. 2. Deployment interference annoyances and waste of time The interference radius for AMSes already existed at this time and having to get in and out of the vehicle in order to attempt to deploy wasted a lot of time and effort and was quite frustrating, let alone extremely dangerous. 3. Congestion at the single equipment terminal Even though we only had up to 150 friendly players per continent and they were supposed to spread out, people spawning in Standard Armour often found themselves waiting to get near the Equipment Terminal. At the same time, hardly anyone ever needed to deconstruct. As the spawntubes on the side were mostly aesthetic lore suggestions of why you could spawn in the bubble, two was pretty redundant. 4. Predictable stationary locations There were people (though not that many) that quickly realised that once the orientation of the AMS was known, you could simply spam shots into a specific area of the AMS (the rear section) to almost guaranteed hit something. Particularly some snipers did that, but the large concentration of freshly spawned troops at the rear made for easy splash damage kills from tanks especially. 5. Lack of control over spawnpoint choice Due to other AMSes frequently getting closer to where you killed, you often lost the option to spawn at the AMS of your choice. THE AMS MK.2  The AMS Mk.2 then allowed you to deploy the vehicle from within the driver seat, in one blow eliminating or at least highly reducing problem 1 and 2. The second change in the AMS Mk.2 was that the equip term and spawn tubes were exchanged. This instantly created twice the capacity of serving players with obtaining gear and also made it easier for players collecting gear to use the AMS as a shield between them and a target, due to the side being a better defense. The final change in the AMS mk.2 was the addition of a Matrix Panel to the front of the vehicle instead of the deployment button. A panel many players sadly still haven't found or forget to use. Regardless, this created a much greater strategic potential for the AMS, as you could create secret staging grounds for just your outfit or you yourself, away from the zerg that wouldn't be swamped immediately and therefore found immediately and therefore killed immediately. So were there other problems that wern't solved between the Mk.1 and Mk.2? Yes. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, you had no control over when or who someone could spawn at your AMS. Another problem was that you still had to manually press B time and again to find a spot that wasn't in the interference radius of another AMS. In fact, this got a lot trickier later after the Aegis turret and other deployables also got interference radii! More general problems were with performance and the spawning locations: it was quite regular to get stuck upon spawning between the AMS and a wall if someone placed it close to it or at an angle to one. While driving, the length of the vehicle and the steep terrain angles in some locations sometimes meant you'd get stuck on the edge of terrain, not being able to move forward or backwards. Handling and acceleration were poor, but considering you could easily run over infantry due to the weight and despite the narrow shape of the AMS, quite logical. The AMS' cloak shield was as indicated before vital, but also passed through objects, walls and terrain. Passing through walls could cause some issues at the backdoor, as well as AMS location detection from inside a base. It would also cloak vehicles who's point of reference for the game lies inside the cloak bubble. This way you could for instance cloak a Lodestar that was 80% out of the cloak shield. This caused some annoyances in finding a way into the shield, some collissions and most importantly... not being able to see the entry point of the Lodestar. The last issue with the AMS cloak field were bugs that would render it or something else visible against a foggy background at long distance before it was properly rendered and disappeared, on top of some gamma issues that could cause such a rendition and actual cheating that disabled the shield altogether. Motion and Disruption Sensors as well as the Router's rotating blue shield were frequently visible from certain angles outside the AMS, revealing its position and therefore signing its death certificate. With regards to the Router, the Router has always required a cloaking field as it is an easy target which cannot be defended well once discovered. The good thing about a Router/AMS combo is that it either takes a lot of time to set up by one person who then has to maintain both vehicles to prevent them from deconstructing by taking ownership of either (especially Router who deconstructs faster), or simply teamwork. Hence the AMS and Router often went hand in hand, although the Router could be used in relation to a tower and Aegis field as well. Often placement of AMS and Router was at a vehicle construction pad to cut traveling times to a vpad. (Of course I'd always kill friendly Router Pads leading inside to friendly bases... Small note on Router design: acquiring pads could have been made a bit easier because often it was not visible where the pad's acquisition term was and the vehicle too far from the ground to leave a use cue on the ground, similarly acquisition rules in the vehicle description was unclear). Either way, a very important aspect about the AMS is that you need to place it somewhere concealed and still leave room for players to spawn and per chance place another vehicle in the cloak field without the cloak field being too small for people to spawn in. This includes getting it somewhere. The lower profile it has, the easier it is to use hills to your advantage as visual and physical cover. Hence compact size for an AMS is an absolute must and must be balanced with its cover value and rate of detection. THE AMS MK.3 So now on to PlanetSide 2. Let's call a potential PS2 AMS the Mk.3 for easy reference and see what other lessons in design can be learned from the Mk.2. The Mk. 3 can and has to be different in several ways, though the most important lesson from either AMSes is that a spawnpoint that's visible and detected is a gigantic "KILL ME ASAP" sign and even if it is highly defended, it will always fall within seconds or minutes tops unless the enemy is not able to get out of a building. This is even more important as there are more players in PS2, making the life expectancy of any detected mobile spawnpoint even shorter. The capacity of avoiding detection is therefore the most important feature of an AMS. In terms of shape, a lower profile would help people get out of stuck situations, though would also create less cover for infantry to use. On the other hand, this would also allow more positions to place it and would make it easier to reach these positions undetected. Perhaps a steep, but slightly stepped design ('vehicle shoulderlines') could help a player get out of a sticky situation. To solve the issue of steep angles, it's also possible to increase the amount of wheels in the AMS, do something with gravity or player pushing that pulls an AMS that is "partially airborn" back with its wheels to the ground. Alternatively, the wheels could follow the ground by creating joints in the AMS' structure or by making the suspension follow the terrain more loosely. The map could have deployment interference radii on it, as suggested by Hayoo a long time ago, to increase deployment efficiency and reduce annoyances. The first thing to realise in relation to equipment obtaining, is that people will not spawn in Standard Armour. This means the need for equipment terminals to be accessed right after spawning is reduced severely. In fact, it's none as people can instantly run off. The second realisation is that there are four times the amount of potential spawnees on your AMS (or Galaxy), on top of which people are locked into classes with very specific weaponry, meaning the need to re-equip has increased severely. I would say that this then on the whole increases the need for equipment terminals. Rather than two, the Mk.3 would require 3 or 4 equipment terminals. The range from which equipment can be acquired could be slightly increased, but it must be noted that this can influence a combat situation around an AMS. The old equip terms often already had a direct combat role to restore armour by quick switching and I often changed from infil to Sweeper, Rocklet or Flaklet user. Quite handy and IMO in principal fine, but shouldn't be made too easy either. In that sense, it could be fair to not reset shields with change of gear in PS2 either. The location of the equipment terms could also change in the deployed situation: they wouldn't even have to be situated directly against the vehicle's hull, but could be deployed at a small distance within the cloaking field, allowing 270 to 360 degrees access. This would reduce the amount of equipment terms needed again. As with the Galaxy, the equip terms could also be holographic. With regards to the cloaking field, several improvements could be made as well. From the larger pop numbers, the first realisation is that there are more peopl that potentially detect the AMS location. Fast concealment remains therefore pivotal in an effective AMS. Second, the cloaking field might become too small to support a larger spawning populace. Although any cloaking field doesn't have to be higher, it may have to be a slight bit wider and more elliptical in shape to encompass all the spawnees. This of course has some consequences on gameplay too. The bigger the field (especially higher), the easier it is to detect the AMS as the distortion in the sky is greater and passes along more textures and backgrounds that might reveal it. Shield shape and size then could be a strategic customization feature. Another improvement would be the ability to access cloaked vehicles by always displaying entry point locations, or only partially cloaking vehicles (which would cause AMS detection issues if bits stick out (!). Similarly, it would help if the shield would not pass through "high density" objects. MK.3 CUSTOMIZATION Lastly, the Mk.3 could have more modifications and customizations possible. For instance, it is possible to not have a cloak field (I would never recommend not having that though) and instead install an anti-air or anti-vehicle turret or something else on top. It would also be possible to create upgrades and sidegrades, like a force field to protect against damage, automatic repairs (after damage has not been taken for a while as seen is already in PS2), various forms of radar interference and detection systems, pain and healing fields, mobile app. drone launch sites, etc. It is also possible to go even further and go the way of the Red Alert Mobile Construction Vehicle as a variant, where an AMS' capacity for spawns is replaced by entirely different capacities: a capacity for vehicle repair and resupply (instead of the Sunderer which IMO is not suited for that). Meaning it could have either an air pad or a repair silo functionality, or simply having nothing but a very large cloak bubble. Another option would be replacing spawn capacity by Router functionality. Any other lessons the dev team can learn from PS1's AMSes or ideas about a potential AMS Mk.3? Please share! Last edited by Figment; 2012-08-31 at 10:27 AM. |
||
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 10:03 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #2 | ||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Reposted from my upgrade project, could do with some touching up and some new models making to be honest, but its still very relevant to this thread:
The AMS I would adapt to serve support troops in a variety of roles and they would be accessible with the relevant advanced support certifications. The dedicated support AMS variants would be: Medical AMS: Standard AMS as it is now; a place for respawning. It would also have the ability to heal troops within a few meters, as well as increase stamina regeneration. Vehicle Repair AMS: Equipped with a vehicle repair bank and resupply station. No infantry respawn ability.  Command AMS: Equipped with a command uplink and radar dish. No infantry respawn ability. This vehicle would allow the commander to access RTS style controls to direct his platoon when piloting a command drone from the vehicle, and view his troops HUDs via helmet mounted cameras. They would also be able to access their command tools whilst inside the vehicle. All spotted enemies would be highlighted on the commanders screen.  Hacking AMS: Equipped with a various pieces of equipment for the hacker to utilise to disrupt the enemy. No infantry respawn ability.  The HAMS would allow the user to do the following: 1) Disable Enemy Radar - the HAMS allows a user to disable the radar of all enemies in the area. 2) EMP Strike - Like an Orbital Strike, but with EMP. Similar to the CUD's EMP ability, except small (CR3 size, no bigger) and able to be triggered remotely instead of locally. Cooldown period of 5 minutes. 3) Scramble Lock-On Devices - the HAMS has the ability to broadcast a lock-on jamming signal that is of significant size if triggered around the HAMS immediate area, or smaller size if activated on a remote target. This signal increases the lock on time of weapons. 4) Remote Door Unlock - Only affects one enemy door. The HAMS has the ability to remotely disable the door lock on one entrance indefinitely. Can only be used on outside entrances, not interior door locks. 5) Disable Shields - The HAMS has the ability to temporarily weaken one of the shields on the enemy base, allowing friendly vehicles to pass through. 7) Increase Hack Timer - The vehicle emits a disruptive field which adds 30 seconds to the hacking process of nearby control points. This is used by defending troops to allow more time for for defenders to retake the control console. Note that this benefit would not stack. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 10:20 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #3 | |||
|
Major General
|
Last edited by Crator; 2012-06-23 at 10:41 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 10:47 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #6 | ||
|
Major General
|
I wouldn't have an qualms with them giving you the option to modify the Sunderer into an AMS Mk.3... That would be kind of neat actually
 Would allow for more diversity if you could pick and choose the mods from DviddLeff's list!
|
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 10:56 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #7 | |||
|
First Sergeant
|
 But yeah, these look like very good ideas. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 11:55 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #9 | ||
|
Sergeant
|
Nice round up and the pro`s and con`s on the old AMS designs and solution for newer.
I see having the big Galaxy as only Mobile Spawnpoint right now very critically, and i think we need a smaller version of a Mobile Spawnpoint. I think we have two vehicle, who could be used for that, one exist already in PS2. First: The Sunderer. Fits the right size, good armor, and would have multi purpose too (AMS were cut because only one boring purpose for most). A MS Sunderer would have instead of the Smokebomb special, a cloak (when standing still) but can keep his weapon for AV/AI/AA (maybe restriced, but can deal damage and fend of occasianal attackers). When you shoot, cloak is deactivated (allowance for gunner to dropcloak/engage it?). You want enhanced cloak like when moving? Get advanced cloak (which replaceses the weapons) but you can move now why cloak and deploay. Use the old phantasm thing, such as over 40-50kph you only partially cloaked, under that, full cloak). Would allow for maximum stealth at the cost of firepower. Instead of stealth, hardened the Sundere would be an option too, instead of cloak or smokebomb, give it a strong shield ability, which absorbs or reduce damage taken. I would also suggest, keeping weapon active with the shield, for easier balance then a to strong shield, which should be strong enough to have 300-400% in TTK for that AMS. Another Vehicle would be the old phantasm, which really is an obviouse choice too. Highly mobile, can be fast, can be stealthed and slow, multi purpose (my opinion is we need a smaller transport vehicle too). Defense wise, you got a full cloaked, but no weapons, but far more mobile. For added defense allow the transportation for 1-2 MAX Units (instead of others). Not much text, but i really love that idea. So what do you guys think? What to add? What to reconsider? |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 03:57 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #10 | ||
|
Lieutenant General
|
One thing is that I think we shouldn't stick too much to the old shape when discussing the Mk.3. With new functionality come new shape options and requirements.
Another customization option (for when it's visible) that I've been thinking of is to have it have some overhead cover from aircraft (so you can grab gear without being a really easy target). Or the option to deploy some bunker like structures around it. There's quite a few things you can do with a different design. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 06:49 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #12 | ||
|
Corporal
|
Integrate the AMS and the sundie if you -realy- want to reinvent it. But driving an AMS was a chore and it makes little actual sense to have an unarmed single-use vehicle in a game so heavily focused on all-arms combat.
|
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 06:53 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #13 | |||
|
Lieutenant General
|
The Sunderer should be an APC, not an AMS. At most the Deliverer roles should be incorporated into the Sunderer, but even that is actually quite difficult, since Sunderer and Deliverer in PS1, though almost the same, played completely different. The size of the profile, speed, handling, amphibious capacity vs transport capacity and hitpoints alone make those different enough to separate in two vehicles. I can't even begin to describe why an AMS is even further from the Sunderer, but I'll try. Lobbing everything together into single units is not just poor man's design (cheap and cutting development cost), it creates balance issues and prevents the application of far better uses and far newer and more inventive uses. Especially if you tack this on units that aren't designed AT ALL for this sort of job. That it has been given repair and resupply capacity isn't clear from its design, it's also not very logical as it's not an unit that is supposed or expected to last long. Please, PLEASE PLEASE stop this mad design philosophy of applying the extreme of "more in less is more". We might as well have ONE unit then which can be modified to fly, tank, transport, spawn and drop. That'd be ridiculous and it's getting really ridiculous to the point of pissing me off that people put eyecaps on and think in tunnelvision without even realising WHY the devs lob stuff together: Primarily for cutting on development time, texture space and development resources. It has nothing to do with enhancing gameplay itself, there's not one good reason why a Sunderer should do this and ffs the only reason you say "must be Sunderer" is because it's a bus and therefore big and the only ground vehicle that has even remotely similar features to a truck! The Sunderer is not at all designed for this sort of interaction with players in the way an AMS is designed, with visual use cues, clear functionality, terminals etc. Mind, I'm one of the biggest Sundy fans and PS1 Sundy drivers, but it's NOT meant for this sort of job and this is a role it shouldn't be forced into! So please, talk about the AMS Mk.3, or not at all. Or at the very least describe how much changes there would have to be made to the Sunderer so you actually contribute to the thread and your own thought pattern, instead of letting a brainfart slip and dragging the topic off-topic. Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-23 at 06:57 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 07:19 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #14 | |||
|
Lieutenant General
|
Like how everyone in my outfit ALLIANCE hates the driver-gunner idea because it's dumb and takes away from driving. You may need to think again on why it's important in a game without killing people directly. Because it's an indirect unit. Think about that for a bit. You know. How the game fails because all-arms combat can't be done because of travelling times that the AMS is there to cut short. Travelling times of over 25 seconds are too long to make headway in a busy area - if you paid attention you'd have noticed that this is why the AMS keeps moving closer to the enemy postion and a well placed AMS means EVERYTHING between victory and defeat. AMS driving was not boring, it was an art, one that you apparently not really appreciate. That's fine, but don't proclaim it useless because you don't care for it yourself. Which tbh, is weird - any decent PS1 player knows the value of an AMS, why do you think it's such a high priority to take out? It is far, far, FAR more dangerous than a tower after all! So getting one in a good position while under (preferably avoiding) enemy fire is not a chore, it's an absolute thrill! Not every unit has to be able to fight directly to be fun! Your argument is just as empty as the argument "but driving was a chore and boring!" even though our outfit was completely about driving and we LOVED doing it for the entirety of PlanetSide! We primarily used Sundies, Thunderers and Deliverers btw. But virtually each and everyone of us had AMS certs because it was just too important not to have and then a back up or two. It was absolutely vital to have to sustain combat and attack positions without being predictable and without it being taken out while you were moving on your objective. After which you'd relocate it again and again. Or for example would use it with a Router, or would use it for infiltrators. Or would use it to set up a new front. Or would use it to reclaim terrain. Driving an AMS was not just important, it was vital. To dismiss it like you do is utterly ridiculous. PS1 could not have worked without an AMS, it was in fact probably the most important unit of all! And last I checked, PS1 was also completely about combat! So would be nice you could explain what "chore" entails for you, because you currently don´t make an argument, you just claim something is a chore without backing up this statement. For the record, if you think an AMS was a single use vehicle, that says more than enough about your trackrecord with it. Or rather lack there of. For the only one not "making any sense" right now, is you. Don't really want to sound denegrating, nothing personal, but unargumented and tbh rather naive remarks like yours really piss me off. :/ I mean, do you have any idea how rewarding and satisfying it is that YOUR AMS turns the tide of a battle? Or YOU taking out the enemy AMS turns the tide of the battle? No? Man, you've missed out!
Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-23 at 07:20 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-23, 08:46 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #15 | ||
|
Sergeant
|
We understand you, don`t worry, but i am more concerned of the actual gameflow. Yes it was an art, very important, and some people can get accomplishment out of it. Dual purpose allows just for more to do then the single object of driving to point A and deploy, guns, the transportation of troops, is quite fitting and allows for better gameflow, which des devs say is important to them (that is the reason why the AMS was cut).
I don`t agree with you (single use to mulit role), but you put up some nice work! Thank you for being part in this community, see you on the battlefield. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
