Galaxy gunships and drop pods as well as other side grades. - Page 5

IMMentat · 2012-05-12, 09:16 PM

Once they pin you inside, you cannot get out anymore as you cannot bring AA out that suffices. That is not good game design.

I fully agree about this.
The best thing the devs could have done or do is place access in the bases leading to under the wall turrets that you could, repair re-arm and possibly even control them from. Entry only through a hackable door deep within the base.
That said PS2 has far more 3D bases so turret and entrance positioning could allow for much better troop AV and AA defences.

PS1 bases operated like medieval castles, 1st true defence was turrets and vehicle patrols, 2nd was mines and chokepoints around courtyard entrances, 3rd yet more mines within an infantry killzone (courtyard), 4th was the main base entrances, and finally the stairwells then the choke-points around the spawns and Control Console.

The external battle was only half the war in a pitched fight, the NTU silo forcing a much needed timer on each base defence tended to mean that attackers had the advantage in a lengthly engagement (until the side that got pinned in resupplied with vehicles and came back to return the favour).

IMMentat · 2012-05-12, 09:21 PM

Agreed, in-flight repair is just asking for trouble.
I am of the opinion that any and all heals and repairs should be out of battle.
I am praying the medic class is just that, a medic.
A healbeam up the ass providing insane regen "heal-bot" role has the potential to ruin any work put into the game.

Unkillable enemies make for annoying combat, the only thing that will matter in such a case is who has the most healers backing up the front line. Healbeams worked in TF2 because there were 9 players per side, in an MMO there is no such restriction.

Scrape them off the floor, patch em up in relative safety (bullets flying around your head not into it

) and send em back into the fray. Thats how a medic should roll.

Zekeen · 2012-05-12, 09:26 PM

In flight repair is one of THE most retarded things I have ever seen. I've played BF3, with a 5 minute battle of me and a gunner in an attack helicopter tearing up a transport chopper that never ever goes down, no matter how many rockets and bullets we put into it.

It's a game breaker for PS2. In BF 3 it's fine, because it's about fast play and I enjoy sniping the crew members out of a chopper, but in PS2 we don't need such strange stuff.

"We're going down unless someone can fix this thing by aiming a blow torch at their seat!"

Toppopia · 2012-05-12, 09:29 PM

The only time i saw it happen was if one of my friends did or or an engineer was actually useful and decided to heal us, but it became retarded when you got xp for repairing it while inside the helicopter, that crossed the line imo.

velleity · 2012-05-12, 09:48 PM

Eyeclops is trolling. And its been in BF since BFV at least, perhaps earlier but that was the point where bads could fly choppers and it made any difference.

His main point is that the GG in PS1 is retarded. 1 GG and 30 people at a base should not be able to break multiple armored columns including multiple AA peregrine support from over 100 players. Even if those players are bad.

And that is what the players in this thread against the GG are concerned about. Because at some point, mass should win or all the bads will quit and I will have no one to farm.

Baneblade · 2012-05-12, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by velleity

Cow herding an empire as continental commander is another story.

Almost had my name changed to Drover instead of Baneblade...

Stardouser · 2012-05-12, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by velleity

Eyeclops is trolling. And its been in BF since BFV at least, perhaps earlier but that was the point where bads could fly choppers and it made any difference.

His main point is that the GG in PS1 is retarded. 1 GG and 30 people at a base should not be able to break multiple armored columns including multiple AA peregrine support from over 100 players. Even if those players are bad.

And that is what the players in this thread against the GG are concerned about. Because at some point, mass should win or all the bads will quit and I will have no one to farm.

Well, in BF2, most maps with Blackhawks had AA vehicles or attack choppers that could rip em up even if being repaired(except Mashtuur, lack of AA vehicle or attack chopper made it the Stat Pad Hawk).

In BF3 though it's worse overall, things just don't work the same, neither attack choppers, nor AA vehicles, and even tanks, now that they have bullet drop and stuff, aren't that good for blasting choppers from range.

Toppopia · 2012-05-12, 09:59 PM

I miss the Battlefield Bad Company 2 Black Hawk, such fun times, circling the map annihilating everything. And avoiding the tracer darts and rpgs.

Synical · 2012-05-12, 10:54 PM

I understand some people are a little worried about the GG possibly being overpowered. Some of your concerns are warranted, some, not so much. I realize that some people absolutely hated their implementation in PS1.

Give the dev team some credit. I think they know a little more about game balance then the majority of us do, especially seeing as how they have ten years of experience with PS1 to work with. For some reason I don't think they are going to implement the GG in a way that will completely and utterly destroy the balance of the entire game like some of you think.

Like I said before, the only information we have right now on the GG is the fact that it exists. Not to mention we don't have much information about AA either.

It's a little too early to be screaming nerf.

Zekeen · 2012-05-12, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Synical

I understand some people are a little worried about the GG possibly being overpowered. Some of your concerns are warranted, some, not so much. I realize that some people absolutely hated their implementation in PS1.

Give the dev team some credit. I think they know a little more about game balance then the majority of us do, especially seeing as how they have ten years of experience with PS1 to work with. For some reason I don't think they are going to implement the GG in a way that will completely and utterly destroy the balance of the entire game like some of you think.

Like I said before, the only information we have right now on the GG is the fact that it exists. Not to mention we don't have much information about AA either.

It's a little too early to be screaming nerf.

You forget, we DO have more information. It's a bit of a puzzle, but if you put it together, it makes sense.

The GG in PS1 was overpowered cause of it's Anti Ground capacity. I watched videos of it covering a base in explosions. But in PS2, we have the Liberator with such a mortar style gun.

Now, we know the Liberator fills that role, obviously, but there are videos of the devs talking about what not to implement in other things because they take over the Liberators role. Thus, the GG probably won't have mortar style weapons. To further this concept, look through the media, one of the biggest mods they show for the Galaxy so far, is a quad Gatling Gun System. Most likely, it seems, that the Galaxy Gunship will be a machine gun spraying fortress rather than a bomb blasting fiend. It will probably still be powerful, but I bet that is easily balanced with the number of crew members and the heavy cost of such a large vehicle.

Synical · 2012-05-12, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Zekeen

You forget, we DO have more information. It's a bit of a puzzle, but if you put it together, it makes sense.

The GG in PS1 was overpowered cause of it's Anti Ground capacity. I watched videos of it covering a base in explosions. But in PS2, we have the Liberator with such a mortar style gun.

Now, we know the Liberator fills that role, obviously, but there are videos of the devs talking about what not to implement in other things because they take over the Liberators role. Thus, the GG probably won't have mortar style weapons. To further this concept, look through the media, one of the biggest mods they show for the Galaxy so far, is a quad Gatling Gun System. Most likely, it seems, that the Galaxy Gunship will be a machine gun spraying fortress rather than a bomb blasting fiend. It will probably still be powerful, but I bet that is easily balanced with the number of crew members and the heavy cost of such a large vehicle.

I was always bad at puzzles. I usually got half way done and threw all the pieces on the floor.

Yes, this is all very true, and yes, it would seem that the Galaxy will be equipped with gatling guns from what has been shown so far, as to not outshine the Liberator in it's designated role. Which is a good thing, because this should help to further alleviate peoples fears that it will be an unstoppable flying death machine.

I personally try to stay away from theory crafting though, while it is fun, it can be problematic. It usually does one of two things, makes people hyped for something that won't likely happen, or makes people fearful of something that won't likely happen.

Thankfully some people are applying more logic to the issue. You have a basis and source for your information. However, most of the people who are afraid that the GG is going to be overpowered are just making wild assumptions that the GG is going to be the scourge of every PS2 player simply because it was poorly implemented in PS1.

The biggest wildcard in my opinion is how much AA is available, and in what forms, without knowing this we can't really theorize anything at all.

Edit - Just so there isn't any confusion I mean base AA more than vehicle AA. While we know some about which vehicles can be outfitted to be AA platforms (the Lightning, for example) we don't know much about base AA turrets that I know of.

Figment · 2012-05-13, 03:40 AM

What I hope to achieve with the worst case scenario's (and have) is talk about potential bad implementation. Why? Because if the devs only read about the good parts and how much people look forward to it, they won't always know the downsides.

Someone said the devs have ten years of experience with ps1? Wrong. We do. Most of these devs worked on EQ2, Free Realms, DCUO, The Agency. Of course they will have played ps1 but I don't think they played as active cr5s on a daily basis. They are only human. Look at how after 8 (!) years the Reaver got an armour buff, by a dev (Brewko) that had been a GM in game longest of all GMs.

I don't trust devs to be omniscience. Why do you think they love these forums? Treasure trove of info and player use scenario's on things they have not played as in ps1, from angles they did not think of themselves or would not have applied themselves.

Trust me, as a designer myself, the extreme use scenario's are THE most useful ones since it helps find potential flaws. In PS2 terms one of THE most important scenario's is huge numbers. Especially for powerful units.

Synical · 2012-05-13, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

What I hope to achieve with the worst case scenario's (and have) is talk about potential bad implementation. Why? Because if the devs only read about the good parts and how much people look forward to it, they won't always know the downsides.

Someone said the devs have ten years of experience with ps1? Wrong. We do. Most of these devs worked on EQ2, Free Realms, DCUO, The Agency. Of course they will have played ps1 but I don't think they played as active cr5s on a daily basis. They are only human. Look at how after 8 (!) years the Reaver got an armour buff, by a dev (Brewko) that had been a GM in game longest of all GMs.

I don't trust devs to be omniscience. Why do you think they love these forums? Treasure trove of info and player use scenario's on things they have not played as in ps1, from angles they did not think of themselves or would not have applied themselves.

Trust me, as a designer myself, the extreme use scenario's are THE most useful ones since it helps find potential flaws. In PS2 terms one of THE most important scenario's is huge numbers. Especially for powerful units.

I have no problem discussing "worst case scenarios", but at least label your discussion as such so that people understand where you are going with it. Right now it just seems like you absolutely hate the idea of GGs being in the game in general (you stated as much in your first post in this thread).

Like I said before, it would be better to have this discussion once we know more information about certain things. For example, what kind of side grades can a Galaxy pilot get when it comes to outfitting his GG? Can they outfit the GG with mortar type weapons like in PS1, or only gatling guns? How prevalent are AA base turrets? We know Engineers can build AI and AV turrets, can they build AA turrets as well? Just how viable are dedicated AA vehicle platforms i.e. the Lightning. Knowing certain things about the hard counters to the GG would make a "worst case scenario" debate more useful.

I agree with you having discussions like that are a good thing, don't get me wrong. I think if not careful they could easily become overpowered just as you do. I just think we need more information before anyone sounds the alarms.

Mechzz · 2012-05-13, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

No, just no to in-flight repair. THAT is like having vehicle regen, no vulnerability as you stop to repair. At the very least it must be extremely weak.

Originally Posted by IMMentat

Agreed, in-flight repair is just asking for trouble.
I am of the opinion that any and all heals and repairs should be out of battle.

Originally Posted by Zekeen

In flight repair is one of THE most retarded things I have ever seen.

Guys, calm down. In-flight repair was part of PS1 and was definitely not OP. It could only be done at specialist air towers of which there were only a few on the continent. You could repair and rearm at the same time without getting out of your plane, but it probably took you out of the battle for as long as landing and repping using a glue gun.

A similar mechanic being retained presents no issues.

Toppopia · 2012-05-13, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Guys, calm down. In-flight repair was part of PS1 and was definitely not OP. It could only be done at specialist air towers of which there were only a few on the continent. You could repair and rearm at the same time without getting out of your plane, but it probably took you out of the battle for as long as landing and repping using a glue gun.

A similar mechanic being retained presents no issues.

I'm gonna guess that what people mean by inflight repair could be using a glue gun as a passenger while flying, like in BF3, or they are talking about what you said, i agree that flying to a tower doesn't sound too bad, but someone pulling out a glue gun and repairing while flying making you almost invincible? Don't have that, that made me hate BF3 a bit, especially when they gave you xp for doing it... soo horrible...