Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Pork Salad Universe
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-07-23, 08:30 PM | [Ignore Me] #31 | ||
Why not do more of a SkyCrane idea. Have a Galaxy that drops an AMS module. Can only carry the AMS module and maybe a couple of gunners, and drops a cloaked AMS module or has to be deployed on the ground by an engineer. Once it hits the ground it is non mobile. Then engineers can start deploying defenses around it.
Black Orion |
|||
|
2012-07-24, 01:41 PM | [Ignore Me] #34 | |||
If we wanted to, we could make a bradely that can carry 60 infantry, is 3 pixels tall, goes 200mph, has 10 vanguard cannons, has enough armor to survive a direct nuclear assault, and can blast off into space. Of course this would produce questionable balance and gameplay. lf PS2 devs can make vehicles that do multiple roles and are both balanced and have good gameplay, then there is nothing to say they shouldn't. This is what they've already have done with almost every vehicle i nthe game. Reavers/Mosq/Scythe are air superiority and gunships. Liberators are heavy gunships and bombers. Sunderer is troop transport, resupply and repair. And yes, galaxy is troop transport and spawn point. In fact there is one other limitation, which is dev time. It take time and effort to design and implement new vehicles. Its better to use existing assets to take on functions when appropriate. And pretty much all of your module ideas can be implemented as sidegrades to either the Sunderer or Galaxy. Plus if they ever implement buggies, it can get some of those sidegrades as well. It reduces vehicle bloat, reduces dev time, and we have more flexible vehicles. Last edited by OutlawDr; 2012-07-24 at 01:50 PM. |
||||
|
2012-07-24, 01:50 PM | [Ignore Me] #35 | ||||
Lieutenant General
|
Do they have limited resources? Yes. So? That doesn't suddenly make something else a better design. I'd rather they take some time before they implement this, then simply lump it onto the first thing they see "temporarily" and never look back. Rome wasn't built in a day. Time is irrelevant. It has to be there eventually and it has to be suited for the job. A Sunderer is not designed for this sort of interaction and is thus unsuitable. Simple as that. I don't know how hard it is for people to understand that coding design is NOT the same as interaction design. |
||||
|
2012-07-24, 02:04 PM | [Ignore Me] #36 | ||
Because all dev time is important. Time is money, and I'm talking about art design, coding, playtesting and balancing. They have to consider all that compared to the advantages adding something new brings. Is this idea really worth the time and effort when other vehicles can do it just as well? The only real advantage your idea brings over a sunderer is perhaps the lower profile. But honestly we have no idea if this will even be an issue, and you have no idea if either the galaxy and sunderer are "unsuitable". Sure we can speculate all we want, but Im simply not seeing the urgency for an AMS.
|
|||
|
2012-07-25, 12:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #37 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Dude... The meer lack of terminals and terminal access opportunity and recognisability or rather lack thereof is more than enough to know.
Don't be so pigheaded that you can turn even an ATV into an AMS in theory. I know what you suggest and it is a very poor compromise. Don't pretend that there will never be time or resources for more vehicles, we aren't even into beta. And from the footage we've seen there is a lot of need for an AMS. Coding wise you can make an ams out of an infantry unit too, that is not the point. A Sunderer should not compromise on its role. If you give it this role it will have to be used differently, needs to cost far more, etc. It would also attract more unwanted attention which troop transports don't want. Making transport more costly. Last edited by Figment; 2012-07-25 at 12:46 AM. |
||
|
2012-08-31, 07:57 PM | [Ignore Me] #40 | ||
Sergeant
|
It's a nice design, great rework of the idea.
BUT I say no. I'd rather see more optional certification/modular options for the Sunderer that can slot in an MSP/repair deployable option. This way you're utilizing an existing model (in theory less load issues for client/server to handle) with some visual alterations as well.. keeping the concept of troop transport for squad cohesiveness. |
||
|
2012-09-21, 07:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #41 | ||
Major General
|
Saw your AMS pic on the SOE Command Center Eps. 5 just now...
|
||
|
2012-09-23, 08:44 AM | [Ignore Me] #44 | ||
Major General
|
You do know we are in beta right? You ever hear of a place-holder? There's many place-holders in PS2 currently. I'm hoping they decide to create a vehicle dedicated to the AMS and let the Sundy be the troop transport vehicle it's supposed to be.
|
||
|
2012-09-23, 06:57 PM | [Ignore Me] #45 | ||
Sergeant
|
Okay... I think you're taking what I said a bit out of context. I understand that there's a lot of placeholders in beta. I meant that currently they're working with the Sunderer as an AMS along with the Gal. That said would it be cool if there was a dedicated AMS? sure! but given the amount of coding and stuff... I don't think that the devs will make an AMS. so while I agree with you.. I wouldn't necessarily hold your breath.
|
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|