AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2) - Page 4 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Welcome back, we've missed you.
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 2012-09-24, 05:18 AM   [Ignore Me] #46
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by Crator View Post
Saw your AMS pic on the SOE Command Center Eps. 5 just now...
Hah, cool.

Originally Posted by Degrifter View Post
Hate to break it to you... but I think the devs went with the Sundy as a AMS
Oh I know, I'm not satisfied yet, but I'd rather have the Sundy than the Gal. I'm however still convinced a pure AMS is better. I talked to Higby about this at Gamescom Cologne and he said then that they were first going to try a Sunderer built, because creating a whole new AMS would take too long for beta. If they decide they need one, it's going to be post-launch before they start working on it. They first wanted to know what combat difference between a ground and airborne AMS would arrise and how the playerbase felt about it.



What's nice though is that the AMS role as I predicted created a whole different dynamic on the battlefield, one that (without the tank spam) leads to much more interesting infantry fights. Unfortunately virtually everyone discovered the solo-MBT's power against infantry in the process when you bring mass tank groups. (Which is one of the main arguments behind driver =/= gunner debate: tone down the numbers to leave other unit choices and options viable. Once rocket pods are back those numbers might tone down, but we'll see).

As stated, it is a lot easier to place near the frontline, for defense and for field battles. It makes hectic fights possible for both zerg and small teams, without being completely invincible.

It does have several of the issues (like distinction between Sunderers) like I predicted though. For instance the resource price tag for an empty, vanilla Sunderer, is 450, same as one with an AMS. Who's going to use that as a throw-away transport vehicle now?

Currently the only thing you can recognise it by is the small terminal at the rear. If they're going this way, they'll need to have more advanced skins and distinctions on the Sundy. But on that note, I also don't quite understand why they went with a MK.1 equip term location anyway. My guess is they did that, because they still needed somewhere on both sides to hop in and out of the vehicle as they didn't strip it from the transport role while AMS: it's therefore a typical compromise vehicle where neither role is very clearly defined visually or optimised functionaly.

It also doesn't have a binding option yet, an interference radius, nor does it have a lot of AA defense capacity. It's going to take quite a bit more work.

We're also going to have to wait and see how they stand up against rocket pods as they are easier to find and spam than a cloaked AMS. Of course, they can be much better hidden from sight than Galaxies at the cost of hitpoints, which is a good thing.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-09-24 at 05:21 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-09-24, 10:24 AM   [Ignore Me] #47
Hosp
First Sergeant
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


I'm going to +1 this thread because i still want the AMS back. Whether it's the Mk3 or the older Mk2 or some other version all together, but not the Sundy.

The current sundy, to me, just seems like a lazy way of getting the functionality back until they get the real solution in. It's a good band-aid, but not cool long term.
Hosp is offline  
Old 2013-04-18, 02:46 PM   [Ignore Me] #48
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Giggle. It came up on the SOE Command Center 12 again.


Aaaaand on the PS2 facebook. With over 1000 likes (k...?).



Aaaaand on the PS2 Twitter. >.>


Okay that's just silly, Smedley basically offered me a job on facebook right there. O.o'

Originally Posted by Smedley
Wow that is good. You should work at SOE
>.>'
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-04-22, 01:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #49
Whiteagle
Major
 
Whiteagle's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


...But you should work for SOE...

...I'd apply for a Job, but have no 3-D design experience outside of Second Life and Bases built from Cargo Containers and Catwalks isn't the kind of mad genius you can bank on...
Whiteagle is offline  
Old 2013-04-25, 09:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #50
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


I'm pondering on making a small overhaul of the sketch (Mk4.):

- Compacting the sideways deployment area (single, rounded side term - Sundy AMS has proven that if you spawn in a class, the need to use an equip term goes way down)
- Raising that deployed hatch for the deconstruction pad (currently makes it look far higher than it is, because the human length is not correct)
- ATV deployment pad on the rear side (ATVs would gain a bit of appeal in squad ops)
- Possibly adding a human figure (for size reference, possibly showing interaction)
- Functionality indicating symbols on the ground (akin to PS1 symbols)
- Cloak field (lots of comments about lack of defensive systems/cloak on the facebook page)
- Pondering on having the top of the sides become roofing (little bit of shelter for players) along the sides. Of course that would increase the surface area to spam with rockets.

Also, possibly a version where it is undeployed, to show the height differences. These new sketches should help refine the concept and make it look more complete.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-04-28, 06:22 AM   [Ignore Me] #51
SGTAce
Private
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Nicely done history... if they want to make special vehicle for AMS... what would be sunder for? Geting from point A to B? Like galaxy? Driving through shields? Minesweeping?
SGTAce is offline  
Old 2013-04-28, 05:12 PM   [Ignore Me] #52
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by SGTAce View Post
Nicely done history... if they want to make special vehicle for AMS... what would be sunder for? Geting from point A to B? Like galaxy? Driving through shields? Minesweeping?
Transportation and blockade buster would be the primary roles for the Sunderer.

Currently, these roles are hardly used. Yes, delivery truck, once, then AMS. But they stay in the rear of the fight where they were supposed to be running through barriers and all.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-05-07, 03:51 PM   [Ignore Me] #53
BlaxicanX
Sergeant Major
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


I feel that if you removed the AMS people would just stop using sunderers, and they'd fall into the same situation as Gal's, which is that vehicle that no one really ever uses, that you'll see actively being used maybe once or twice in an hour of playing.

I don't think people really think it's worth it to drive a big, lumbering target just so that you can drop off 12 dudes somewhere. Especially now with the harasser here, you can do the same work of a single non-AMS sunderer with 4 harassers, all of which will be moving much faster, are more maneuverable and are harder to shoot.
BlaxicanX is offline  
Old 2013-05-07, 10:55 PM   [Ignore Me] #54
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


But that would be a good thing. Sunderers are supposed to be transports, logistical support units, and siege engines. With the AMS function they are being used outside of their most awesome and useful roles.
Baneblade is offline  
Old 2013-05-08, 06:46 AM   [Ignore Me] #55
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


The Galaxy has been competed away by:
- The lack of single strike targets in combination with frequent spawn rates (practical objective related)
- Jetpacks removing the need for transports to reach high altitudes
- Most buildings low and indefensible removing the need for alternative attack vectors
- ESF rocketpods
- Spawn beacons
- Lack of time to organise and retake areas


The only reason it was used during beta was that you could get anything behind enemy lines, it was the only way to spawn and it caused massive flow problems in that role.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-05-09, 08:33 PM   [Ignore Me] #56
BlaxicanX
Sergeant Major
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by Baneblade View Post
But that would be a good thing. Sunderers are supposed to be transports, logistical support units, and siege engines. With the AMS function they are being used outside of their most awesome and useful roles.
I don't think a vehicle not being used at all or almost never would be a good thing. I'd rather see a vehicle be used for a role it wasn't designed for then see it not be used at all, or very rarely.

@Figment: Agreed. Unfortunately, the AMS is the only thing keeping the sundy from following a similar fate. The AMS is the only function the sundy possesses that can't be performed adequately or better by other vehicles.

Last edited by BlaxicanX; 2013-05-09 at 08:37 PM.
BlaxicanX is offline  
Old 2013-05-09, 08:34 PM   [Ignore Me] #57
BlaxicanX
Sergeant Major
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


edit

Last edited by BlaxicanX; 2013-05-09 at 08:37 PM.
BlaxicanX is offline  
Old 2013-05-09, 09:08 PM   [Ignore Me] #58
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by BlaxicanX View Post
@Figment: Agreed. Unfortunately, the AMS is the only thing keeping the sundy from following a similar fate. The AMS is the only function the sundy possesses that can't be performed adequately or better by other vehicles.
If (gate) shields had more impact, Sunderers would be used far more often as storm ram. The same is true if the cert and resource system was far more restrictive and the Sunderer would be relatively cheap (like the Flash). Especially if it was widely acquirable, opposed to other units due to Tech restrictions.

Imagine if all of the following was true:

- Shield gates existed on every courtyard entrance.
- All bases were walled and raised level walkways and had shields along roads.
- Shield generators were underground in a bunker system with courtyard bunker entrances.
- Base generators powering the entire base were on a level just below the roof of the big buildings.
- Spawns were centralized inside the main building.
- Sphere's of Influence blocked (enemy) Spawn Beacons.
- Jetpacks had limited fuel clips (dispensible in bursts) and would turn normal grunt after using it up.
- Jetpack fuel could be resupplied by engineers' ammo packs.
- Medics would have limited ammo.
- Engineers would have limited ammo packs and turrets.
- Sunderers would have the option to an equipment term only.
- You needed a linked Bio Lab for Harassers (at a heavy vech pad).
- You needed a linked Tech Plant for MBTs (at heavy vech pads).
- You needed an linked AMP station for Liberators (at heavy airvech pads).
- Control consoles were resecured akin to PS1 and at least immediately reset by 50-75%, if not fully (minimum reset of 40 seconds).
- AMSes and MBTs (crewed and heavier ;p) cost 375 resources, ATVs 25, Sunderers 150, Harassers and Lightnings 250.
- ATVs and Sunderers were always available at light vehicle pads.
- ATVs, Lightnings, Sunderers and AMSes always available at heavy vehicle pads.
- A PS1 style cert system was draped over the current cert system, where the current cert system became an account empire-wide tech research system.

Transports like Sunderers and Galaxies would become immensely more important. So would medics. Heck, triage would probably start having some use.

Basically, a need for mass transport would have to be created. We have too much individual access to too many vehicles right now.

Last edited by Figment; 2013-05-09 at 09:33 PM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2013-05-10, 10:12 AM   [Ignore Me] #59
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Originally Posted by BlaxicanX View Post
I don't think a vehicle not being used at all or almost never would be a good thing. I'd rather see a vehicle be used for a role it wasn't designed for then see it not be used at all, or very rarely.
I see plenty of Sunderers used for their original roles. Id like to see the dedicated AMS return regardless what happens to the Sunderer, but it does need a review to give its role more definition. Personally, I want it to act as a siege fort with deployed defenses and the capacity to protect an ams. Requires teamwork and coordination.
Baneblade is offline  
Old 2013-05-12, 02:05 PM   [Ignore Me] #60
MrMak
Sergeant Major
 
Re: AMS Mk.3 design (for when it does get into PS2)


Or keep the AMS sunderer and use this for a sort of expensive command vehicle that can only be used by platoons.

It would have the spawn capabilaties of an AMS +Flash construction by default + an extra utility such as a deployable radar, orbital strike beacon, missile defense etc.
MrMak 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 09:21 AM.

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.