AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2) - Page 3 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: I :love: eMa even before it was the cool thing to do.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Idea Vault

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 2012-07-23, 09:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #31
BlackOriOn
Contributor
Private
 
BlackOriOn's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


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
BlackOriOn is offline  
Old 2012-07-23, 10:37 PM   [Ignore Me] #32
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Make it more of a command center with a modular attachment you can drop from another lodestar galaxy... you just ignited my brain storm. Fuck, give me a couple hours.
Baneblade is offline  
Old 2012-07-23, 11:54 PM   [Ignore Me] #33
NichyC
Private
 
NichyC's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


I'd say, that they could afford to add maybe a turret or two in order to keep the AMS from being quite such easy pickings.
NichyC is offline  
Old 2012-07-24, 02:41 PM   [Ignore Me] #34
OutlawDr
Contributor
First Sergeant
 
OutlawDr's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
Btw, people who think all sorts of units should be combined into one unit suffer from this:
Thats a funny movie, but they are working with real world limitations. We have none of that, this is a video game...The only limitations are gameplay and balance considereations.

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 02:50 PM.
OutlawDr is offline  
Old 2012-07-24, 02:50 PM   [Ignore Me] #35
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by OutlawDr View Post
Thats a funny movie, but they are working with real world limitations. We have none of that, this is a video game...The only limitations are gameplay and balance considereations.

If we wanted to, we could make a bradely that can carry 60 infantry, is 3 pixels tall, has 10 vanguard cannons and enough armor to survive a direct nuclear assault.
Which is why I refered to that in a game you can make a stick fire nuclear blasts if you wanted to, it just wouldn't work for the game because it'd be completely unbelievable.

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 don't with almost every vehicle. 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.
The Dev time argument is irrelevant.

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.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-07-24, 03:04 PM   [Ignore Me] #36
OutlawDr
Contributor
First Sergeant
 
OutlawDr's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


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.
OutlawDr is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 01:45 AM   [Ignore Me] #37
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


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 01:46 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-08-31, 10:26 AM   [Ignore Me] #38
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)




Click on image for larger version!
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-08-31, 07:55 PM   [Ignore Me] #39
Crator
Major General
 
Crator's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by Crator View Post
I'll gladly bump this thread once I get more info from playing. I'm sure a lot will... Some really great thought out ideas and loved the sketches!
Well, here's me bumping! Again, great pic Figs!
Crator is offline  
Old 2012-08-31, 08:57 PM   [Ignore Me] #40
Archonzero
Sergeant
 
Archonzero's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


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.
Archonzero is offline  
Old 2012-09-21, 08:03 PM   [Ignore Me] #41
Crator
Major General
 
Crator's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Saw your AMS pic on the SOE Command Center Eps. 5 just now...
Crator is offline  
Old 2012-09-22, 03:33 PM   [Ignore Me] #42
Degrifter
Sergeant
 
Degrifter's Avatar
 
Misc Info
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Hate to break it to you... but I think the devs went with the Sundy as a AMS
Degrifter is offline  
Old 2012-09-23, 07:02 AM   [Ignore Me] #43
Raka Maru
Major
 
Raka Maru's Avatar
 


Just a note, I'm loving the sundy AMS.
Raka Maru is offline  
Old 2012-09-23, 09:44 AM   [Ignore Me] #44
Crator
Major General
 
Crator's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by Degrifter View Post
Hate to break it to you... but I think the devs went with the Sundy as a AMS
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.
Crator is offline  
Old 2012-09-23, 07:57 PM   [Ignore Me] #45
Degrifter
Sergeant
 
Degrifter's Avatar
 
Misc Info
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


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.
Degrifter is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Idea Vault

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.